Malignant tumors. In the modern West, there are two competing ways of responding to them. The first way is practised by leftists. It involves praising tumors, telling them what a vital and valued contribution they make to the body, and refusing to let tumors be criticized in any way. For example, if lung cancer or liver cancer causes problems, it’s clearly the fault of the lungs or liver. That’s why it’s so important to crush hate-speech about tumors. Can we not all agree that carcinophobia has no place in a decent society?
Words are all it will take
The second way of responding to tumors is practised by rightists and libertarians. They claim that, in fact, the real carcinophobes are those who don’t allow tumors to be criticized. Banning criticism of tumors implies that tumors aren’t grown up enough to accept criticism. But the very essence of tumors is that they grow up (and out and left and right and backward). We are actually respecting tumors if we speak sternly to them when they misbehave. And how else are we going to stop them misbehaving?
An enriching tumor surrounded by carcinophobic lung-tissue (from Wikipedia)
After all, words are the only way to respond to tumors. Either you praise them or you criticize them. Those are the only ways to respond. Certainly we can’t remove tumors from the body. What kind of bigot wants to do such a cruel and mean-spirited thing? All decent people agree that tumors enrich our lives and make a vital contribution to the body. Nor can we try to prevent tumors forming in the first place. That’s not just bigoted: it’s impossible. You cannot prevent tumors. As Sadiq Khan, the Muslim mayor of London, once said: “Part and parcel of living in a great global city is you have to be prepared for tumors. You have to be vigilant.” And Khan is certainly right about “great global cities” like London, Paris and Madrid. Sudden tumorous outbreaks have killed hundreds of people in those cities.
No Third-Worlders, no Third-Worlding
But Khan isn’t right about “great global cities” like Tokyo and Beijing. Tumors haven’t struck there at all. So what’s the difference? Well, Khan wasn’t really talking about tumors, of course. He was talking about Muslim terrorism. And Muslim terrorism doesn’t strike in Tokyo for the simple reason that Japan has not allowed mass migration by Muslims. In other words, you can easily prevent tumors like Muslim terrorism and other Third-World pathologies. Japan has done it by refusing to allow Third-World migration. If there are no Third-World folk in your nation, there are no Third-World pathologies. Enriched London doesn’t just suffer from terrorism but also from gang-rapes, acid-attacks, stabbings, female genital mutilation, and massive political corruption.
All of that is a consequence of Third-World migration and the Third-World pathologies it inevitably spawns in what is rapidly ceasing to be a First-World city. The same is true elsewhere in England. The small Yorkshire town of Rotherham has become infamous around the world for its Muslim rape-gangs, which have been raping, beating, prostituting and occasionally murdering underage White girls for decades.
Authentic Muslim menace
Despite its infamy, Rotherham is only a small part of sexual jihad being waged by Muslims in Britain. Worse things are still going on in bigger towns and cities. And no-one in mainstream politics is prepared to do anything about it. Politicians, journalists and academics don’t even speak the truth about it. And the truth is that the only way to end the pathologies caused by Muslims and other Third-World people is to expel them from your territory. Refusing to admit this, the mainstream left and mainstream right advocate the two competing policies I described above. Leftists believe in curing non-White pathologies by blaming them on Whites. Rightists believe in curing non-White pathologies by talking tough about them. And we’ve just seen excellent examples of these two failed policies in a story from another Islamically enriched Yorkshire town called Wakefield.
As part of a game with his friends, a 14-year-old autistic White boy purchased a Koran and took it to Kettlethorpe High School in Wakefield, where it was accidentally dropped and slightly damaged. There was no malicious intent and the Koran does not appear to have been disrespected or vandalized in any way. But Usman Ali, a local councillor for the Labour party, immediately spotted another chance to intimidate the infidels and assert Muslim dominance. He tweeted the following, using smarmy left-speak to convey authentic Muslim menace:
After todays [sic] events at Kettlethorpe High School, where a Quran has been desecrated are [sic] a serious provocative action which needs to be dealt with urgently by all the authorities, namely, the police, the school and the local authority.
This terrible event could destroy all the good progress that has been made in Wakefield to highlight and combat Islamophobia.
I have been in contact with local leaders to ensure that swift and appropriate action is taken to deal with this grave situation. We all need to work together to make sure that this terrible provocation does not set back community relations for years to come. (Tweet by Usman Ali)
Councillor Ali later deleted the tweet, but it had had its desired effect. I’ve often written at the Occidental Observer about the goy grovel, that is, the sycophancy and submission of White gentiles to Jews. Now meet the kaffir krawl, the sycophancy and submission of White infidels to Muslims (kaffir is the Muslim term for a non-Muslim). The kaffir krawl was energetically performed in Wakefield by “all the authorities” and also by the mother of the autistic schoolboy, who has reportedly been “forced to flee his home and go into hiding, fearing for his life” because of death-threats.
Making death-threats is a crime in Britain. Slightly damaging a Koran without malicious intent is not. But the police in Wakefield acted as though it was the other way around. They performed the kaffir krawl to Muslims and confirmed once again that Britain has a new and unofficial blasphemy law. The old and official blasphemy law, which was abolished in 2008, protected only Christianity. The new and unofficial blasphemy law protects only Islam, because it has been created by Muslims and their readiness both to threaten and to commit violence in defense of their religion. Leftists, who hate free speech and love Islam, welcome this new law. Rightists and libertarians don’t welcome it, but they can’t be honest about why the new law exists or about their own inability to combat it. This is how the Trotskyist libertarian Brendan O’Neill, a cognitive clone of the Jewish sociologist Frank Furedi, began his thunderous denunciation of the events in Wakefield:
Imagine living in a country so religiously uptight that even making a smudge on a copy of the Quran could turn into a police matter. A country so nervous of offending Islam that even kids could be punished for allegedly disrespecting that religion. A country so determined to ringfence certain religious beliefs from scrutiny or mockery that you might hear actual politicians denouncing as ‘provocative’ and ‘terrible’ any slight against those beliefs.
Well, if you’re in the UK then you live in that country. Forget Iran. Never mind Afghanistan. It’s right here in Blighty, a supposedly free, mostly secular nation, that all of the above recently happened. Let’s call it ‘Qurangate’. And let’s talk about just how messed up it is. (‘Qurangate’ and Britain’s new blasphemy rules, The Spectator, 25th February 2023)
Try and guess how Brendan continued his article. Did he point out that Britain now resembles the intolerant Muslim nations of Iran and Afghanistan because Britain has imported millions of intolerant Muslims? Did he issue a mea culpa for firmly supporting that influx of intolerant Muslims throughout his career? Of course he didn’t. Instead, he emitted hot air about “free speech” and condemned the way in which accusations of “Islamophobia” are used to justify censorship and blacklisting. He also plugged the useless and stupid line that protecting Islam from offence is “demeaning” and “infantilising” to Muslims.
Trotskyism and truth don’t mix
And to top it all off, he lied. Note the first adjective he used in this paragraph:
This strange and strict control of discussion of Islam can have dire consequences. Who can forget the case of the schoolteacher at Batley Grammar, also in West Yorkshire, who was hounded into hiding for the ‘crime’ of showing his pupils an image of Muhammad? Or the craven decision by UK cinema chains to pull the movie The Lady of Heaven last year after Islamist protesters kicked up a storm? In such a febrile and censorious climate it strikes me as incredibly reckless to treat four children as wicked defilers of Islam’s holy book. (‘Qurangate’ and Britain’s new blasphemy rules)
Brendan was lying when he used the word “strange” to describe the way Muslims are using intimidation and violence to control “discussion of Islam.” On the contrary, that control is completely normal and entirely predictable. Most of Britain’s vibrant Muslims come from Pakistan and, as I’ve pointed out again and again at the Occidental Observer, Pakistan has both harsh laws against blasphemy and a flourishing tradition of extra-judicial execution for alleged blasphemers. A Pakistani Muslim called Tanveer Ahmed brought that tradition to Britain in 2016, when he traveled from England to Scotland and stabbed to death another Pakistani Muslim called Asad Shah. Ahmed was an orthodox Sunni Muslim and Shah belonged to a Muslim sect called the Ahmadis, whom Sunnis regard as heretics and blasphemers. There was nothing “strange” about that murder, just as there was nothing strange about Brendan O’Neill’s refusal to discuss it at the time or later. Indeed, violence against Ahmadis is so routine in Pakistan that Asad Shah was granted asylum in Britain.
Absolute certainty of disaster
Unfortunately for him, Britain has been colonized by orthodox Muslim Pakistanis who, naturally enough, have brought their robust anti-blasphemy traditions with them. Not to mention their robust traditions of sexually enslaving infidel females and creating horrible genetic diseases by marrying close relatives. So would it be right to use another of Brendan O’Neill’s posturing phrases and say it was “incredibly reckless” to allow Pakistanis to colonize Britain? No, it wouldn’t be right to use that phrase. Doing so would imply that there was only a high probability of disastrous consequences, not an absolute certainty. But it was absolutely certain that allowing Pakistanis and other Third-Worlders to colonize Britain would have disastrous consequences.
Brendan O’Neill has supported that Third-World colonization every step of the way. Naturally enough, he’s also weaseled and lied about the disastrous consequences. Or has ignored them entirely. To the best of my knowledge, he has never mentioned, let alone condemned, the murder of Asad Shah. He certainly didn’t mention it in his article about Qurangate in Wakefield. “Who can forget?” he asked in the article before listing examples of Muslim attacks on free speech. Well, you could, Brendan. And you did. But that silence wasn’t maintained by Tom Slater, another Trotskyist libertarian and cognitive clone of Frank Furedi. When Slater wrote about Qurangate, he said this:
We’ve seen how this story ends far too many times now. The threat to those deemed to be blasphemers is very real. Batley Grammar School, where in 2021 a teacher was forced into hiding after he showed a cartoon of Muhammad to his religious-studies class, is a 10-mile drive from Kettlethorpe High School. That teacher is still in hiding, no doubt fearing he will meet a similar fate to Samuel Paty — the French teacher beheaded in the suburbs of Paris in 2020 for almost identical ‘crimes’. Those who refuse to believe that such a thing could happen here should Google Asad Shah, the Ahmadiyya Muslim shopkeeper from Glasgow who was stabbed to death in 2016 by a man who accused him of ‘disrespecting’ Islam. Everyone seems to have conveniently forgotten about that awful case. (When a Wakefield boy brought a Koran to school, Spiked Online, 27th February 2023)
No, Tom: not everyone. I’m a knuckle-dragging far-rightard, but I’ve never forgotten about the “awful case” of Asad Shah’s murder. And please feel free to draw on any of my articles about it when you and your comrades begin your unrelenting campaign to put Asad Shah where he deserves to be, namely, at the heart of all future commentary about Islam and free speech in Britain:
- When Tanveer Met Asad: Vibrant Vignettes from the Modern West
- Martyr with a Machine-Gun: How Liberal Piety Facilitates Muslim Pathology
- Head-Chopping for Muhammad: How Trotskyism and Truth Don’t Mix
- Heretics and Halfwits: Furedi’s Freedom-Fighters and the Lethality of Libertarianism
- Libtards Wail, Muslims Wait: Why Fans of Abortion Won’t Defeat Fans of Muhammad
- “Fuck Your Free Speech”: Leftism, Libertarianism and the Death of Free Speech
- A Tartan Tyranny: Censorship and Silence in the Virtue-Signalling Scottish Police State
But I have to be honest about why I’ve never forgotten the murder of Asad Shah. That “awful case” is not at all inconvenient for me, because it proves I’m right about the lunacy of allowing Muslims to colonize a Western nation. It is certainly inconvenient for self-proclaimed libertarians like Brendan O’Neill and Tom Slater, because it contradicts all their weaseling and lies about why Muslims attack free speech and how we can stop them doing it. Muslims will never stop doing it until they and other Third-World enrichers are expelled from Western nations.
Either way, the always idiotic and often evil ideology of libertarianism is doomed. If Third-World enrichers remain in the West, they will further assist the creation of a leftist tyranny in which sincere libertarians will be imprisoned (and insincere ones take their masks off to reveal their true leftism). But if Third-World enrichers are expelled, it will be because Whites who are serious about defending Western civilization have come to power. And Whites who are serious about defending Western civilization are not fooled by the thoroughly Jewish ideology of libertarianism, which warmly welcomes Muslim migration, then weasels and lies about the inevitable consequences.