Muslim Immigration

A Collision at the Intersection

/6 Comments/in , , /by

The American term “intersection”, what the British call a “crossroads”, is both a practical solution and a hazard. Aided by traffic lights and signage, it allows the flow of traffic travelling in different, non-parallel directions, but the fact that these differing streams have to traverse common space is what gives it a greater element of risk than driving on a regular road. There are often auto accidents at intersections.

“Intersectionality” is also part of the lexicon used by those under the spell of identity politics. For a definition, who better to turn to than the Center for Intersectional Justice (CIJ)?

The concept of intersectionality describes the ways in which systems of inequality based on gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, class and other forms of discrimination ‘intersect’ to create unique dynamics and effects.

Unique dynamics and effects. Keep that in mind, as this Venn-like model is currently producing both, although not in the way the CIJ passionately strive for. Intersectionality is designed to produce a united front of the oppressed and, presumably, each of the separate identities so put upon will find the others right behind them. However, at one particular intersection, a pile-up has been coming for some time. A recent and apparently insignificant example from England perfectly illustrates a culture clash that was built into the system from the outset.

Until recently, the Mayor of Keighley in Yorkshire was a Muslim, Councillor Mohammed Nazam. He attended a pride festival, and later apologized for his attendance on a Facebook page called “Keighley Pakistanis”, calling his decision to attend “a lapse in judgment”. This did not sit well with his political party, the Conservatives (we will return to Muslim conservatism), and he was forced to resign. One point of interest, from his own defense on Facebook, is that he claimed the ceremony contradicted his “personal religious beliefs”.

This is only partly true. There is a sense in which Muslims have personal religious beliefs in that they are technically individuals. But the Muslim faith is collective, that of the ummah. It is sectarian, certainly, but the Five Pillars of Islam, along with the Koran, are a common center of gravity for Muslims, an amalgam of faith and politics which features certain immutable characteristics. One of these is an explicit rejection of homosexuality.

While homosexuality is illegal in around 70 countries, there are 11 which explicitly impose or can impose a death sentence. They are all Muslim countries, and perhaps Gay Times — or at least its tourism advice department — can be relied to know where they are. This thorough-going inventory includes the relevant clause from the various nations’ penal code. The exception is Saudi Arabia, which has no penal code and instead cuts out the middle-man by applying shariah direct from the Koran.

Muslim parents have also protested against LGBTQ in the classroom in Canada and America, stamping on pride flags and not confining their protests to placards at the school gate. Three sets of Muslim parents in Maryland are taking the Montgomery School board to court on the principle that their inability to opt-out from books they find offensive contravenes their First Amendment rights. Muslims are very effective in the law courts, because what individuals don’t know, their imam does.

Protests in Ottawa caused severe cognitive dissonance among counter-protestors, says the National Post, as the opposing marchers “…appeared to be discomfited by the fact that their protestors weren’t their supposed bogeyman [conservative Whites] but included many people of color, including socially conservative Muslims.”

Socially conservative. Watch that phrase, because it has a big future in the Left’s explanation as to why intersectionality has become, to use their language, “problematic”.

Those on the political right are often accused of “not understanding” Islam. We certainly understand it better than did the White liberal residents of Hamtrack, Michigan. From the UK’s Left-wing Guardian;

In 2015, many liberal residents in Hamtrack, Michigan, celebrated as their city attracted international attention for becoming the first in the United States to elect a Muslim-majority city council … This week [published June 17] many of those same residents watched in dismay as a now fully Muslim and socially conservative city council passed legislation banning Pride flags from being flown on city property. [Italics added]

What exactly did they expect? The dominant far-Left in the West, while they are obsessed with hated conservatism, have overlooked the fact that Muslims are the most hyper-conservative creed on the planet. While an old-school British Tory might want to ease the UK back to the 1950s, many Muslims would prefer to route-march us all back to the eighth century. They make the Amish look like progressives.

And so Muslims can be reasonably said not to devote too much time to doing what the rest of us are mandated to do, which is “celebrate” pride month, or season, or year. By all accounts it is not possible to travel far in any British city without seeing the dystopian bunting of the pride flag, an ensign as ugly as the ideology that forces it on schoolchildren and, by proxy, their parents. But you won’t see the pride flag flown in Tower Hamlets, Newham, Luton or any other “social conservative” majority area of London. You will, on the other hand, see so-called “Shariah zone” posters in those areas.

Early versions of such posters had two men hand-in-hand with a cross struck through, but this was removed as Islamic activists doubtless did not want to be seen as homophobic. It would be inadvisable, however, for two men to walk holding hands in the areas mentioned, and many others in the UK. Muslims are the only British group actively promoting hardline conservative values.

But Muslims are not some ideological cavalry riding to save the timid kufr, who dare not otherwise criticize the forced LGBTQ curriculum. Elsewhere in Yorkshire, a teacher and his family, under new identities, are still in hiding after the teacher showed a cartoon of the prophet Mohammed from French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo to the class he was teaching. No one from the “intersectionality” lobby has ever spoken up to help him.

The gay community are also having problems with the trans lobby, and the latter’s embrace of diversity at every level is making it problematic to be homosexual in an increasingly Islamized society. The French gay community, although staunchly against Marine Le Pen and her Rassemblement National due to its opposition to same-sex marriage, still saw one third of them voting for her in the run-off stage of the last French Presidential election.

Unlike Western politicians, representatives of the extensive Muslim community are quite clear on their tolerance level. In the USA, a document precisely outlining the Islamic position on the LGBTQ community was released in May of this year, and it achieves what no Western politician has been able to in that it makes absolutely clear Islam’s attitude to shifting cultural norms. Navigating Differences: Clarifying Sexual and Gender Ethics in Islam has hundreds of signatories from the Western Islamic infrastructure. And these signatories cannot be dismissed as crank lobbyists unsupported by the heads of their religion. Islam has no head, it has no Pope. Imams and Islamic scholars (the ulama) make a consensus by weight of numbers, not by Papal decree.

In the section Our Constitutional Right to Hold Our Views, an interesting legal juxtaposition is made:

We recognize that our moral code conflicts with the goals of LGBTQ proponents. We also acknowledge their constitutional right to live in peace and free from abuse. Nevertheless, we emphasize our God-given and constitutional rights to hold, live by, and promote our religious beliefs in the best manner (Quran, al-Nahl: 125) without fear of legal reprisal or systematic marginalization.

Despite the document claiming “constitutional” rights, the American Constitution is not referenced, despite the famous First Amendment being explicit about religious freedoms. “Constitutional rights” here refer to the Koran.

The Democrat-media complex took a little while to spin this, but eventually wheeled out Jen Psaki to explain that the GOP are “recruiting” Muslims to oppose transgender policies. They surely know that no recruitment is needed. Muslims are already conscripted, just not to the GOP but what they see as a higher authority.

So-called “woke” ideology is becoming a victim of its own pathological obsession with diversity, its intersectional mainframe rupturing as Muslims — and Blacks — will not tolerate homosexuality and all its works. And there are other stress fractures within “intersectionality”. “Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists”, or TERFs, have been ostracized by the LGBTQ community for their biologically realist approach. And left-wing feminists are leaving areas controlled by  Muslims for fear of harassment.

The default left-wing riposte to the Islamic injunction on homosexuality is that the Bible says the same thing as the Koran. Quite so, but if you arrange a drag show in Birmingham, Britain’s second city — 34% Christian, 30% Muslim — it won’t be the Seventh-Day Adventists who pay you a visit. The Koran, incidentally, although it condemns homosexuality, does not endorse the death penalty. That occurs in the Hadith, the supposed sayings of Mohammed: “Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Lut (Lot), execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done”.

The dar al Islam does not recognize the separation of state and religion it sees in the dar al harb and will not tolerate LGBTQ propaganda in its children’s schools — or anywhere else as their presence increases. The British state — an extension of globalist concerns — will not countenance opposition to its LGBTQ agenda. Either an unstoppable force is about to be stopped, or an immovable object is about to move. Stay clear of the intersection.

Leftists Lie, Children Die: Murder, Mutilation and the Malignancy of Muslim Migration

/67 Comments/in , /by

The late, great Larry Auster did it in three words. He captured the essence of a complex socio-political phenomenon and told us exactly how we should behave towards that phenomenon. Yes, he did all that when he wrote these three words: “Islam is evil.” It’s an accurate description of Islam and an acute prescription of how we should treat Islam. 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.

Leftists lie, Lola dies: the 12-year-old French girl raped and butchered by Muslims

But the West is presently controlled by another evil ideology, that of leftism, which is why we’ve done the exact opposite of what Auster’s insight tells us we should do. We’ve been invading and interfering in Muslim nations for decades and we’ve been allowing Muslims to flood into the West for decades. Leftists have lied about this flood, telling us how much it enriches the West. Well, France has just seen more horrible proof that leftists are wrong and Auster was right. Islam is indeed evil and, metaphorically or otherwise, Madame Guillotine needs to start meeting and greeting the traitors who presently control France. On the 14th October 2022, the body of a 12-year-old blonde French girl called Lola was found stuffed into a suitcase in a heavily enriched district of Paris. She had been raped, strangled and mutilated. And there was a small but possibly sinister detail: she had the numbers 1 and 0 written on her feet for yet unexplained reasons.

Too gruesome to be ignored

A 24-year-old woman, “Dahbia B,” and other enrichers from Muslim Algeria were soon arrested on suspicion of the murder. From CCTV footage at the apartment where Lola lived near her suspected killer, it was plain that the murder was planned and that Lola was familiar or even friendly with the Algerian woman. It also emerged that the woman was in France illegally, having overstayed her permission to stay there as a student. In August this year, she had been issued with a OQTF, obligation de quitter le territoire français or “order to quit French territory” within thirty days. Alas, she hadn’t obeyed it. Not many illegal migrants do obey such orders: “only one in ten,” according to the BBC. It’s yet another example of how the political elite in France are overseeing le Grand Remplacement, the Great Replacement, of the native White French.

Meanwhile, the cultural and media elite in France have minimized or ignored the heavy price in murder, rape, theft and misery paid by ordinary Whites for the treachery of the elite. But the murder of Lola was too gruesome to be ignored. The rape, murder and mutilation were bad enough, but she may have been mutilated before she was strangled. And she may have had numbers written on her feet because her murderers were planning to sell her body for its organs. But there’s another unpleasant twist to the story. Lola’s parents don’t want her murder to be “exploited” by the right:

Lola’s parents, who met [the French president Emmanuel] Macron this week, have pleaded with politicians to stop exploiting their daughter’s death, after her photo was displayed at a far-right demonstration in Paris on Thursday. They asked that “any use of the name and image of their child for political ends immediately cease and be removed” from the internet and in protests, their lawyers said. The request was made so they could “honour the memory of their child in peace, respect and dignity”. (“Parents of girl found in suitcase urge French politicians to stop exploiting death,” The Guardian, 21st October, 2022)

Like the leftist French elite, Lola’s parents seem to want this story to disappear as soon as possible. The obvious conclusion is that her parents are also leftist. Otherwise, you’d expect them to be leading the demonstrations about the murder and demanding the enforcement and toughening of France’s migration laws. But no: they want to “honour the memory of their child in peace, respect and dignity.” That’s a leftist reaction. Or a guilty and self-centered one. Or both. After all, it was the parents’ choice to live in a district enriched by Muslims and it was their daughter who paid the price.

More Muslims, more child-murder

Whatever else is going on, Lola’s parents appear to have heeded the leftist advice issued after the murder and mutilation of dozens of children in Manchester in 2017. A Libyan Muslim “born and bred in Britain” detonated a suicide-bomb amid the happy crowd leaving a pop-concert, whereupon leftists promoted the Oasis song “Don’t Look Back in Anger” as giving the best possible advice for the victims, the families and friends of the victims, and the wider society. Leftists want us to believe that the murder and mutilation of children by a suicide-bomber is just one of those things. Nobody could have seen it coming and nobody could have prevented it. And if — or rather, when — something like that happens again, the same advice will apply: “Don’t Look Back in Anger.” Lola’s parents seem to agree with leftists in Britain, which is why I conclude that Lola’s parents in Paris are leftist too.

And what about Kriss Donald’s parents in Glasgow? I think they are leftist too, because they did not respond with anger to the horrible murder of their son by enrichers from another part of the Muslim world. Kriss Donald was a 15-year-old schoolboy snatched from the street in 2004 by Imran Shahid and other thuggish Pakistani criminals seeking revenge on a random White after a fight in a nightclub. Thanks to police inaction and official sensitivity about “community relations,” Muslim criminals in Glasgow had started to believe that they were above the law. But there was no public enquiry into the horror created by that police inaction. Led by Imran Shahid, the criminals drove their White victim for hundreds of miles before returning to Glasgow and carrying out a gruesome murder. Kriss Donald was repeatedly stabbed, then doused in gasoline and set on fire. The murderers then fled to Pakistan, but were eventually extradited and put on trial for murder. “Ironic” is an over-used word, but I think it is definitely ironic that the trial produced the “first-ever conviction for racially motivated murder” in Scottish history.

Imran Shahid, a well-nourished child-butcher

The laws mandating tougher sentences for “racial motivation” were introduced by leftists and aimed at Whites, because leftists portray Whites as the cruel and brutal oppressors of gentle and virtuous non-Whites. That portrayal is a leftist lie, as the murder of Kriss Donald very clearly demonstrated. But although the murderers are serving longer sentences because their crime was “racially motivated,” they are not finding their time behind bars much of an ordeal. Photos reveal that Imran Shahid is an even bigger thug than he was before his sentence. Literally so: he is eating very well and spending a lot of time lifting weights in a prison gym. According to a report about his sentence in one Scottish newspaper: “He was demanding better food than everyone else. Other Muslims are getting half a chicken but he was demanding a whole chicken every day — and he got it.” If Imran Shahid gone to a Pakistani jail instead, he would not be issuing demands like that. People starve to death in Pakistani jails rather than feasting on chicken and pumping iron. Pakistan is a very corrupt and violent country, where sexual abuse of all kinds is rife and marriage between close relatives guarantees the birth of large numbers of mentally and physically handicapped children, decade after decade after decade: “In Pakistan, half of the population marry a first or second cousin, more than in any other country. In rural areas this can be 80%.”

Christianity fights evil, Islam feasts on evil

The consequences of mass migration to Britain by Muslims from Pakistan were therefore utterly predictable. The rape-gangs of Rotherham and many other British towns and cities are an expression of authentic Pakistani culture. So are the ever-growing numbers of mentally and physically handicapped Muslim patients in the same enriched towns and cities. On the negative side, such patients are a huge expense to White tax-payers in Britain. On the positive side, such patients give British doctors a chance to see genetic diseases that are rare or non-existent among stale pale native Brits, whose attitudes to inbreeding are shaped by Christianity, not by Islam. What Christianity abhors, Islam embraces. Like Lola’s murder in France and Kriss’s murder in Scotland, the endless and enormous production by Muslims of mentally and physically handicapped children is more proof of Auster’s summation: “Islam is evil.”

But let’s be fair to Muslims: they are not the only migrants who are enriching Britain with evil. There is in fact a closer parallel for Lola’s murder in France than the murder of Kriss Donald in Scotland. That closer parallel is the murder of Mary-Ann Leneghan in England. She was a 16-year-old White schoolgirl raped, tortured and stabbed to death by a gang of enrichers in 2005. But only one of the gang was a Muslim and he wasn’t its leader. The leader and other members of the gang were non-Muslim Blacks. I wrote about them in an article called “Black Saints, White Demons” and contrasted the long-forgotten story of Mary-Ann Leneghan with the endlessly repeated story of Stephen Lawrence. On any objective reading, the prolonged and premeditated murder of Mary-Ann Leneghan by Blacks was far worse than the quick and casual murder of Stephen Lawrence by Whites. But the murder of Mary-Ann Leneghan revealed the truth, whereas the murder of Stephen Lawrence could be used to reinforce a lie. I’ve already mentioned the lie: it’s endlessly promoted by leftists and it states that Whites are cruel and brutal oppressors of gentle and virtuous non-Whites.

Jews lie, goys die

The leftist love of that lie explains both why Stephen Lawrence is the center of an official martyr-cult and why Mary-Ann Leneghan was forgotten long ago. And no single leftist has done more to promote the martyr-cult of Stephen Lawrence than an energetic Jew called Dr Richard Stone. But Dr Stone hasn’t just worked hard on behalf of Blacks and their criminality. You’ll also find him among the many Jews who have proclaimed that “Muslims and Jews are natural allies.” Those Jews never fully explain the proclamation, but it’s obvious what they mean: Muslims and Jews are natural allies against White Christians.

And that’s where Auster’s insight comes in useful again. If Islam is evil, then so are the Jews who see Muslims as natural allies. QED. Auster was himself racially Jewish, but he converted to Christianity and didn’t hate Whites or Western civilization. That’s why he opposed Muslim migration rather than, like powerful Jews across the West, doing all he could to increase it. Jews have always been at the heart of the leftist propaganda-machine that churns out lies like “Diversity is our strength” and “Islam is a religion of peace” and “Black failure is caused by white racism.” The murders of Lola in France, Kriss in Scotland and Mary-Ann in England prove that when leftists lie, children die. And children will keep on dying as long as we allow leftists to keep on lying.

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

/23 Comments/in , /by

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.

The Cult of Stupid: Libertarianism, Leftism, and the Murder of Free Speech

/37 Comments/in , , /by

It’s one of the great truths of human existence: Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens – “With stupidity the Gods themselves battle in vain.” So said the great German writer Schiller (1759–1805) more than two hundred years ago. A lot has changed since then, but not the power of stupidity in human affairs. You can see stupidity at work 24/7 in Western politics and culture, for example. But occasionally it flares up in what you could call a stupernova — a glorious explosion of jaw-dropping dumb.

Migration to the max!

Stupernovas regularly dazzle the eyes of readers at the libertarian website Spiked Online, which is passionately in favour of both open mouths and open borders. That is, it wants both the maximum possible free speech and the maximum possible migration. “Let them in!” Spiked cries in favour of unlimited immigration from the most anti-libertarian cultures on earth. It then adds: “But don’t let them bring their culture with them!”

German genius Friedrich von Schiller

In other words, Spiked thinks that the West can have Third-World people without Third-World pathologies. All we need do is talk loudly enough and long enough about Enlightenment values, and bingo! The Third-World folk in our midst will suddenly leap forward centuries or even millennia in cultural development. Back in Pakistan, for example, Muslims rape children on an industrial scale, commit massive electoral fraud, and machine-gun politicians for dissing the Prophet Muhammad. In Britain, they’ll embrace the Enlightenment instead. They’ll stop raping children and committing electoral fraud. And in no time at all they’ll be erecting statues to Voltaire and forming reading-clubs to probe the collected works of John Stuart Mill.

Chop till they drop

But only if we wise Whites guide them out of their backward brown-skinned ways! That’s the implicit (and racist) message behind Spiked’s incessant wailings about how, against all the odds, Third-World people continue to exhibit Third-World pathologies in First-World settings. The latest wail at Spiked – and the latest stupernova – is about a Christian woman called Hatun Tash who was stabbed at Speakers’ Corner in Hyde Park in London. What had she done? Well, she’s a member of a group that tries to convert Muslims to Christianity, she was wearing a T-shirt in support of Charlie Hebdo, and she was criticizing Islam. Can you guess who might have attacked her? Indeed, her attacker may even have been trying to enact that fine old Islamic tradition of head-chopping for Muhammad.

Face-slashing for Muhammad: Islam-critic Hatun Tash is stabbed at the home of free speech (note Charlie Hebdo T-shirt)

As you’d expect, Spiked were disturbed and dismayed to see a Third-World pathology once again marring Britain’s march towards multi-racial libertarian Utopia. Their headline came in the form of an incredulous question: “You can be stabbed for criticising Islam?” Yes, fancy that! Britain imports millions of Muslims who believe strongly in Islam, and suddenly people are being stabbed for criticizing Islam. Who could have seen that one coming?

Competing traditions

Not the high-powered intellects at Spiked, it seems. But Brendan O’Neill’s article about the “bloody events in Hyde Park” did get one thing right. It said that Speakers’ Corner in Hyde Park is “traditionally the one place in the UK where you can express pretty much any belief you like.” Indeed. But whose tradition is that, Brendan? It’s a fragile and recently created tradition of the White British. But what about head-chopping for Muhammad? Whose tradition is that? It’s a sturdy and deep-rooted tradition of Third-World Muslims whom you and your comrades at Spiked want to see entering the country in unlimited numbers.

Brendan goes on to blame the “woke” White left for “emboldening … Islamic extremists.” He’s once again plugging the highly racist line that Muslims and other non-Whites have no true agency and must rely on Whites to rescue them from their backward ways. In fact, Muslims are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves to love the Prophet and hate free speech. It isn’t the woke left that emboldens Muslims in Pakistan to machine-gun Muhammad-dissers or sentence innocent people to death on ludicrously vague and unjust charges of blasphemy.

The liberty-loathing left

But it is the woke left that campaigns passionately for maximum migration by Pakistanis and other Third-Worlders. And that should give Spiked a clue about how bad Third-World migration is for all the libertarian causes they claim to care about so deeply. The biggest enemies of free speech, from the Labour party in Britain to the Democratic party in America, have also been the biggest facilitators of mass migration from the Third World. Is that a coincidence? No, of course not. It’s been a coherent and perfectly rational strategy to strengthen the power of the liberty-loathing left.

Third-World people vote overwhelmingly for leftist parties, so more Third-World people means more power for authoritarian leftists. And Third-World pathologies like terrorism justify an ever-stronger security and surveillance state. That’s simple enough to understand, but some people resolutely refuse to understand it.

Here’s another stupernova at Spiked, written in support of the White teacher in Yorkshire who was driven into hiding by Muslim death-threats:

At the heart of our political culture is a commitment to free speech, free expression, freedom of thought, and tolerance of difference. People come here from every corner of the globe to enjoy our liberties and to fit into our peaceful and respectful democratic life. If this is to endure, it is essential that those in authority push back against any effort to undermine these vital norms. If we are to keep the freedoms we’ve enjoyed, we must show solidarity with the teacher and his family. (Freedom is on the line in the Batley by-election, Spiked, 30th June 2021)

No, Third-World people come to the West to exploit the high trust and wealth of societies that they could never have created for themselves. And at the heart of “our political culture” is a commitment not to freedom, but to the service of Jewish interests. Tony Blair was funded by Jewish money and obeyed Jewish orders, appointing a Jewish activist called Barbara Roche to massively (and malignly) increase already high levels of Third-World immigration.

Whites create free speech, Jews destroy it

Now the so-called Conservatives are in power and are doing nothing to slow, let alone end or reverse, the Third-Worlding of Britain. Are you surprised to learn that the current Conservative treasurer is a little-known Israeli Jew called Ehud Sheleg? You shouldn’t be. And you shouldn’t be surprised to see who is behind yet another attack on the free speech bequeathed to America by the White Founding Fathers:

PayPal Holdings Inc is partnering with non-profit organisation the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) [the most powerful and well-funded Jewish organization in America] to investigate how extremist and hate movements in the United States take advantage of financial platforms to fund their criminal activities.

The initiative will be led through ADL’s Center on Extremism, and will focus on uncovering and disrupting the financial flows supporting white supremacist and anti-government organizations. It will also look at networks spreading and profiting from antisemitism, Islamophobia, racism, anti-immigrant, anti-Black, anti-Hispanic and anti-Asian bigotry.

The information collected through the initiatives will be shared with other firms in the financial industry, law enforcement and policymakers, PayPal said. (PayPal to Research Transactions That Fund Hate Groups, Extremists, American Renaissance, 26th July 2021)

If you’ve got Jews, you’ve got implacable enemies of free speech and Western civilization. That’s why Jews have always worked so hard to close mouths and open borders. With Third-World people come Third-World pathologies that justify ever more authoritarianism and ever less freedom for the Whites who built the West. Libertarianism, which supposedly fights for freedom, is in fact another front in the Jewish war on Western civilization. For example, the libertarian fanatics at Spiked are devout disciples of the Jewish sociologist Frank Furedi, who is himself a devout disciple of the tyrants Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky.

Lenin was part-Jewish, Trotsky was fully Jewish. That was a very bad sign for the White Christians over whom they began to rule. And so is the Jewishness of Joe Biden’s government in America and Boris Johnson’s government in Britain. Bad times are ahead, goyim. So brace yourselves. But one thing will surely survive the wreck ahead: stupidity. It can’t be eliminated from human affairs, but we can try our best to minimize it. The stupernovas at Spiked are, by contrast, written by people who want to maximize it.

Libtards Wail, Muslims Wait: Why Fans of Abortion Won’t Defeat Fans of Muhammad

/14 Comments/in , , /by

As Francis Carr-Begbie pointed out long ago at the Occidental Observer, one cultural phenomenon is guaranteed to cause bafflement among liberals, libertarians and cuckservatives. It is the extraordinary spectacle of Muslims behaving like Muslims. Again and again members of Britain’s intellectual elite have been disturbed and dismayed to learn that Muslims don’t behave like Buddhists, Anglicans or Jehovah’s Witnesses. No, Muslims behave like Muslims.

Ho-ho Mo-Show No-No

Who could have seen that one coming? And while libtards wail about Muslim pathologies, Muslims calmly wait for mass immigration and high birth-rates to bring them political and cultural victory. Now we have a new example of libtard uproar at Muslims-behaving-like-Muslims. A teacher at Batley Grammar School in the heavily enriched English county of Yorkshire showed his pupils some satirical cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad during a religious studies lesson. Did Muslim activists in the area respond like fans of Voltaire and warmly support the free speech of the teacher? No, they responded like Muslims and resolutely opposed his free speech. They demonstrated intimidatingly at the school and issued death-threats against the teacher, who has been driven into hiding with his wife and four children.

Muslims behaving like Muslims outside Batley Grammar School

The school itself and local Labour politicians have, of course, immediately capitulated to Muslim intimidation. The headmaster Gary Kibble grovelled like this: “The school unequivocally apologises for using a totally inappropriate image in a religious studies lesson. It should not have been used. … We have immediately withdrawn teaching on this part of the course, and we are revising how we go forward with the support of all communities represented in our school. … The member of staff has been suspended pending an independent formal investigation.”

But it’s hard to blame the headmaster for grovelling or the teacher for going into hiding. After all, look at what happened in France in October 2020. A teacher called Samuel Paty was literally beheaded by an angry Muslim teenager after showing his pupils satirical cartoons of Muhammad.

Something rotten in the county of Yorkshire

I wrote about the murder of Samuel Paty in “Headchopping for Muhammad” and discussed the dishonesty and reality-evasion of the supposed libertarians at Spiked Online, which is the latest incarnation of the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), a “weird [Trotskyist] sect” founded in the 1970s by the Hungarian-Jewish sociologist Frank Furedi. The libtards at Spiked loudly condemned Samuel Paty’s murder, but they had ignored the very similar murder of Asad Shah on British soil in 2016. Shah, a gentle, tolerant Ahmadi Muslim living in Glasgow, was stabbed to death by a free-speech-hating Sunni Muslim called Tanveer Ahmed, who travelled hundreds of miles from Yorkshire to defend the honour of the Prophet against Ahmadi blasphemies. If Spiked hadn’t ignored Shah’s murder, they could have made an important point in their current noisy condemnation of the “shameful capitulation” at Batley Grammar School, namely, that something is rotten in the county of Yorkshire.

But spotting patterns is not something that libertarians are interested in. Instead, Spiked proved once again the truth of Francis Carr-Begbie’s observation about the blindness of libtards, or liberals and libertarians who support open borders for Third-World people, then bewail the inevitable consequences. According to Paul Stott at Spiked, “Video footage from outside the school is disquieting.” Yes, when Muslims behave like Muslims it’s “disquieting” rather than wholly predictable. Stott went on to claim that “schoolkids” should be free to see satirical cartoons of Muhammad, because “Batley Grammar is a secondary school in a liberal democratic society.”

“What most of the country undoubtedly wanted”

He’s wrong. If Britain were a “democratic society,” mass immigration would never have taken place here against the clearly expressed wishes of the White majority. The treacherous leftist politician Roy Hattersley, a former deputy leader of the Labour party, proudly announced in 2013 that he had refused to support “what a clear majority of my constituents, and most of the country, undoubtedly wanted [in 1964] — the repatriation of all Commonwealth immigrants.” If repatriation had taken place then — or, far better, mass immigration had never begun in the first place — Britain would have avoided all the Third-world pathologies we see flourishing here in 2021, from attacks on free speech to rape-gangs and acid-throwing.

And if Britain were a “liberal society,” it would not have passed so many laws (at Jewish instigation) to stifle the entirely legitimate opposition of British Whites to their dispossession. For example, the British state would not have twice attempted to jail Nick Griffin, then the leader of the British National Party (BNP), for speaking the truth about Muslim rape-gangs in Yorkshire. In 2004 Griffin had made a highly accurate prediction about Islamic terrorism in Britain. He said it was inevitable and that the “terrorists will turn out to be either asylum-seekers or second-generation Pakistanis, probably from somewhere like Bradford.” Whatever you think about Griffin, it’s clear that he isn’t a libtard. He wasn’t “disquieted” by Muslims-behaving-like-Muslims. Instead, he observed their behaviour, analysed it, and understood exactly how and why it would worsen.

Ancient wisdom for modern libtards

But even if Paul Stott at Spiked were correct to call Britain a “liberal democratic society,” he would still have to admit that large parts of Britain have seceded from liberalism. Surprisingly enough, when Pakistanis emigrate to the liberal West, they bring illiberal Pakistani culture with them. Well, it’s surprising to libtards, but the Roman poet Horace did even better than Nick Griffin in predicting the consequences of mass immigration. More than 2000 years ago, Horace said this: Caelum non animum mutant qui trans mare currunt — “They change their sky, not their soul, who rush across the sea.”

Horace and other great classical writers would once have been central to lessons at the scene of the current uproar about Muslims-behaving-like-Muslims. Batley Grammar School was “founded in 1612 by the Rev. William Lee” and provided early education for Joseph Priestley (1733–1804), one of the creators of modern chemistry. Priestley “strongly believed in the free and open exchange of ideas” and “advocated toleration and equal rights for religious Dissenters.” But it’s unlikely that Batley Grammar will be producing any more great scientists and supporters of free speech. As the BBC points out, “According to a 2015 Ofsted report Batley Grammar had 689 pupils of which almost three-quarters were from a minority ethnic background [i.e., were Pakistani Muslims].”

More and more pressure against free speech

Have many libtards noticed the irony of pupils who form “almost three-quarters” of a school being described as “from a minority”? I doubt it. I also doubt that Paul Stott at Spiked will celebrate democracy-in-action at Batley Grammar School. If the majority of the parents are Muslim and they don’t want their children exposed to anti-Muslim satire, why shouldn’t they get what they want? As the Muslim population of Britain and other Western nations continues to grow, there will be more and more pressure against free speech and other archaic Western customs. The libtards at Spiked want to pretend that this is the fault of Whites for refusing to stand up for “Enlightenment values.”

It isn’t. When Tanveer Ahmed murdered Asad Shah on British soil in 2016, he was consciously imitating two Muslim hero-martyrs: Ilm Ud-Deen, who murdered a Hindu publisher under the British Raj in 1929, and Mumtaz Qadri, who murdered a politician in Pakistan in 2011. Both men were defending the honour of the Prophet, both were executed by the state, and both are celebrated today in Pakistan as ghazi and shahid — “hero” and “martyr.” And in 1938, Muslims in London “ceremoniously” burned a copy of H.G. Wells’ A Short History of the World “because of references to the Prophet Muhammad which they considered offensive.” Muslims love the Prophet Muhammad and hate free speech not because they’ve been led astray by any Western ideology, but because they are Muslims. How difficult is that to understand?

No limits on Muslim immigration

Very difficult for the libtards at Spiked, it appears. Their chief propagandist, Brendan O’Neill, has announced that “Britain is not an Islamic country. We do not live under Sharia law. It might be a punishable offence in Islamic nations to make or display an image of Muhammad, but it isn’t here.” In fact, “Sharia law” does operate in large parts of Britain that are de facto “Islamic” because — guess what — they have Muslim majorities after relentless Muslim immigration and on-site population growth. And what do the libtards at Spiked think about Muslim immigration? They want all limits on it removed. In 2015 Brendan O’Neill called for open borders under the stirring headline of “Let them in”:

We shouldn’t demonise or infantilise African migrants. We should welcome them. … We shouldn’t pity these migrants; we should admire them, for using guile, gumption and perseverance to come here. They’re precisely the kind of people sluggish Europe needs more of, an antidote to our students who can’t even clap without having a mental breakdown and our new generation who think that being told to ‘get on your bike’ to look for a job is tantamount to abuse. Let’s relax the borders and let them in to try their luck in our countries and see how they fare. If we do that, we’ll put the traffickers out of business, end the deaths in the Mediterranean, and, more importantly, do our part to enable the aspirations of human beings who have committed no crime other than wanting to realise their potential in our towns, our cities, alongside us. (Let Them In, Spiked Online, 21st April 2015)

In 2021 O’Neill is condemning “religious extremists” and “religious intolerance” in Batley. But Muslims there are displaying precisely the “gumption and perseverance” he celebrated in 2015. O’Neill is also condemning the “slippery way” in which the term “Islamophobia” is used to “conflat[e] discussion of Islam with racism.” That is, he doesn’t like Muslims using “guile,” which he thought was such a positive thing in the aspiring migrants of 2015. What’s happening in Batley is the inevitable consequence of the mass immigration O’Neill has so strongly supported for so many years.

Dedicated to narcissistic self-indulgence

He has also strongly supported unrestricted abortion. And here again we see the stupidity of libertarian support for Third-World immigration. Muslims are not merely entering the West in large numbers: they are being subsidized to have large numbers of children here. In my article “Narcissism and Nihilism,” I contrasted Yetto Souiriy, a Muslim woman in France who had had five children, with Julie Burchill, a liberal woman in Britain who had had five abortions. Indeed, Burchill positively celebrated them: “I’m so glad I had all those abortions. … I’d as soon weep over my taken tonsils or my absent appendix as snivel over those abortions. I had a choice, and I chose life — mine.” The fervent philosemite Burchill writes regularly for Spiked and other libtard outlets in praise of Jews and condemnation of Muslims. She’s an excellent example of libtardism in action. Her choice of “life” was actually a choice of narcissistic self-indulgence. And while she was having abortions, snorting cocaine and experimenting with lesbianism, Muslims were having lots of little Muslims and steadily strengthening their political and cultural power.

Sex, drugs and five abortions(!!): the fervent philosemite Julie Burchill

So here’s a question for Julie and her fellow libtards at Spiked: Who’s going to win a demographic battle between those who believe in lots of abortions and those who believe in lots of children? You won’t need many guesses. But let’s be fair: Burchill’s self-indulgence hasn’t just lost her the war of wombs with Muslims. It’s also lost her the war of words. In December 2020, Burchill defended her fellow philosemite Rod Liddle against a Bangladeshi Muslim woman called Ash Sarkar, who had criticized Liddle for making a joke about having sex with schoolgirls. Burchill tried to exploit the historical fact that the Prophet Muhammad first had sex with his wife Aisha when she was nine years old. But Burchill’s choice of words was so crude, intemperate and ignorant, and the behaviour of the supporters she enlisted so unpleasant, that Sarkar was able to bring a successful action for defamation.

“Muslims and Jews are natural allies”

Burchill had to pay “substantial damages,” cover Sarkar’s legal costs, and make a grovelling public apology. Sarkar’s lawyer Zillur Rahman triumphantly announced: “I am delighted for Ash, it really is a resounding victory. As a Muslim myself, this case meant more because of the grossly offensive comment made concerning Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessing be upon him), who is dear to all Muslims.” If all their enemies were like Julie Burchill, Muslims would have much less need of their good friends in the Jewish community. And they certainly have many good friends in the Jewish community, from Dr Richard Stone, the prominent anti-racist who proclaimed that “Muslims and Jews are natural allies” in 2001, to Richard Benson, the former head of the Jewish Community Security Trust (CST) who began helping Muslims “battle Islamophobia” in 2014. Here are a few more examples of the warm support given by Jews to Muslims:

But the fervent philosemites Julie Burchill and Rod Liddle have never discussed — let alone condemned — the central Jewish role in fomenting the Muslim pathologies now so prominent in the West. It’s yet another example of libtard blindness. So is the claim made by Tom Slater at Spiked that the Muslim protestors in Batley are “dickheads.” In fact, Muslims aren’t foolish or misguided to oppose free speech, because they know it is bad for Muslim interests. As a former Trotskyist, Slater may recall that Josef Stalin used censorship very successfully to maintain his own power and defeat his enemies. History teaches us that censorship works very well to defend authoritarian systems, while free speech is a very rare and fragile phenomenon. History also teaches us that free speech was created by stale pale males like John Stuart Mill in Britain and the Founding Fathers in America. In other words, it’s a White thing — Muslims, Blacks and other non-Whites neither created it nor want it.

The “libertarians” at Spiked believe in protecting the rare and fragile phenomenon of free speech by opening the borders of White nations to unlimited numbers of highly illiberal tribalists from the Third World. So here’s another question for Tom, Brendan, Julie and the other libtards at Spiked: If you support free speech and open borders for Muslims, while Muslims support censorship and open borders for Muslims, who exactly are the dickheads?

Huddersfield Horrorshow: Another Non-White Rape-Gang in Brave New Britain

/17 Comments/in , , /by

Like Friedrich Nietzsche, George Orwell is often and unfairly thought to have no sense of humour. But there’s a lot of humour amid the horror of Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949). Take the scene in which a group of workers at the Ministry of Truth conduct a “Two Minutes Hate” against thought-crime and then worship Big Brother with “a deep, slow, rhythmical chant of ‘B-B!… B-B!’ — over and over again, very slowly, with a long pause between the first ‘B’ and the second.”

The Ministry of Mendacity

Does the juxtaposition of “B-B” with “Ministry of Truth” remind you of anything? It should, because Orwell was satirizing the B.B.C., where he worked on propaganda for part of the Second World War. In Orwell’s novel, the Ministry of Truth was dedicated to lying and to the suppression of inconvenient reality. That’s why it was full of memory holes, “large oblong slits protected by wire grating” that “existed in thousands or tens of thousands throughout the building, not only in every room but at short intervals in every corridor.” Memory holes exist to destroy memory, not preserve it, as the novel’s hero, Winston Smith, sees in a torture-chamber at the Ministry of Love. His torturer O’Brien shows him a photograph proving the evil and corruption of the governing ideology:

“It exists!” he cried.
“No,” said O’Brien.
He stepped across the room. There was a memory hole in the opposite wall. O’Brien lifted the grating. Unseen, the frail slip of paper was whirling away on the current of warm air; it was vanishing in a flash of flame. O’Brien turned away from the wall.
“Ashes,” he said. “Not even identifiable ashes. Dust. It does not exist. It never existed.”
“But it did exist! It does exist! It exists in memory. I remember it. You remember it.”
“I do not remember it,” said O’Brien. (Op. cit., Part 3, ch. 2)

That’s how the BBC really behaves in the twenty-first century. When reporting restrictions were lifted at the end of Britain’s latest vibrant rape-gang trial, the BBC held the story up briefly before the eyes of the British public, just as O’Brien held a truthful photograph up before the eyes of Winston Smith. Then the BBC imitated O’Brien and dropped the story down the memory hole: in a day, it had vanished from news-bulletins. As far as the BBC is now concerned: “It does not exist. It never existed.”

A few of the vibrant rapists behind the Huddersfield Horrorshow

Read more

Why Do Jewish Organizations Want Anti-Israel Refugees?

/49 Comments/in , , /by
 The 2014 WaPo caption: “People hold a banner” — they mean “Arab Immigrants hold a banner”

Previously posted at VDARE.

The Main Stream Media predicts Donald J. Trump will appeal for “national unity” in his Inaugural Address this Friday, but they’ve been mistaken before. One way he could wrong-foot the Narrative: by announcing an immediate pause in “refugee” admissions, currently surging, to be followed by a zero quota for the next fiscal year—something that, by a legal quirk, he has absolute authority to do. There would be hysteria, in which the major Jewish organizations would, almost certainly, join. My question: why would they do that?

The major Jewish organizations have certainly been in the forefront welcoming Syrian refugees [For Jewish Groups, Syrian Refugees are a Reminder, Not a Threat By Ron Kampeas, JTA.org, November 24, 2015; As Anti-Refugee Sentiment Builds, Jewish Agencies Push for Settlement, Greg Salisbury, JewishExponent.com, November 25, 2015]. This seems bizarre, given the well-known anti-Jewish, anti-Israel sentiments common among Muslims.

The Jewish leaders’ own rationales—which we should take seriously—generally derive from how they view the past. And it’s the fact that Jews were sometimes denied the ability to flee Hitler’s Germany.

But in privileging their own perceived interests, the Jewish organizations obviously are not taking into account the legitimate concerns of Americans about refugee resettlement’s impact on terrorism, social cohesion, unemployment, crime, and welfare costs—not to mention the ethnic genetic interests of whites. The entire issue is seen through the lens of Jewish memories. There is no attempt to make a case that admitting “refugees” will actually benefit America— the vast majority are uneducated and cannot be expected to contribute to a First World economy. [An ill wind, The Economist,January 23, 2016,]

Moreover, even granting that denying refuge to Jews in the 1930s was indefensible (and I don’t agree) there are solutions to the refugee problem that would not mean more unassimilable, non-White immigrants. Thus Trump has already proposed providing a Mid-East safe zone.

But why are Jewish organizations so sanguine about immigrants who harbor anti-Jewish, anti-Israeli attitudes?

Given that Jewish organizations do not promote anti-Jewish immigration to Israel—or, indeed, any non-Jewish immigration to Israel—we can rule out high humanitarian principles.

Rather we must seek an answer in terms of Jewish perceptions of their self-interest.

But for an evolutionary psychologist, this immediately presents a problem. There are several mechanisms implicated in the evolved psychological basis of ethnic conflict, But the most relevant: people have negative stereotypes of outgroups, and to discriminate against them. So why would Jews promote admitting people into Western countries even though they (like everyone else) are inclined to see the migrants negatively?

Separation and Its DiscontentsFor Jews living in Western societies, however, the migrants aren’t the only outgroup. Western peoples and cultures themselves are an outgroup— see my book Separation and Its Discontents. Hence one would expect Jewish negative attitudes toward both immigrants and the host white culture.

So Jewish attitudes could be analyzed as simply whichever outgroup summons up the greater hostility. And Jewish attitudes are primarily determined by their hostility towards whites.

Still, humans have rational thought processesthat process culturally-available information and can suppress negative attitudes toward outgroups, while inducing empathy and guilt. In my view, these processes are central to understanding why so many Europeans wholeheartedly welcome refugees—after reading empathy-inducing accounts of suffering women and children in the Main Stream Media, and after being exposed to guilt-inducingeducation.

(And, of course, the anti-White revolution is nothing if not massively incentivized.)

But what rational calculations might lead Jewish organizations to promote the refugee invasion of Europe?

As reflected in their statements, first and foremost is the perception that racially-conscious, racially-homogeneous Germany turned against Jews during the National Socialist period; and that other European and European-derived countries (such as the U.S.) failed eagerly to accept Jewish refugees.

Lack of racial/ethnic homogeneity in diaspora countries is therefore seen as making Jews safer (see, e.g., here, p. 246).

Moreover, Jewish intellectual movements—prototypically, the Frankfurt School—have successfully portrayed ethnocentrism among Europeans as pathological—hence talk about the “virus” of anti-Semitism. Fear and loathing of White, Christian America runs deep. It is seen as a far greater threat than importing a substantial but relatively small community of Muslims, even if they are prone to terrorism and anti-Jewish attitudes.

Terrorism, after all is a strategy pursued by non-elite groups. An elite group like American Jews pursue their interests in the MSM, the legislative process, and the judicial system—top-down influence that is far more compatible with oligarchy than democracy. (An oligarchic model fits U.S. politics much better than a democratic model—see Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page in Perspectives on Politics, September 2014, Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens).

Muslim immigrants, given their proneness to street crime and low academic achievement, are no threat to the elite status of Jews. Nor are they a threat to the current oligarchical power structure of Western societies, an unholy alliance between large donors, politicians, and MSM and academia elites.

Moreover, the idea of any limitation on immigration to the West by a particular racial/ethnic or religious group is completely at odds with the ideology of multiculturalism and diversity, the “we’re all the same” mantra, and the ideology that Western countries are “proposition nations” committed only to abstract ideas like “freedom” and “democracy,” with no ethnic or religious content. And this ideology has been promoted by Jewish intellectual movementsat least since World War II—a theme of The Culture of Critique. It has been internalized across the elite spectrum—by Republicans and Democrats, Jews and non-Jews alike

Commitment to immigration and multiculturalism is thus a central aspect of Jewish self-identity. It would be something like getting the Jewish community to turn its back on Zionism if it became politically costly as a result of pro-Palestinian activism. Not going to happen.

The late Lawrence Auster, a Jewish convert to Christianity, framed Jewish attitudes in terms of a “slippery slope” argument:

Now when Jews put together the idea that “any social prejudice or exclusion directed against Jews leads potentially to Auschwitz” with the idea that “all bigotry is indivisible,” they must reach the conclusion that any exclusion of any group, no matter how alien it may be to the host society, is a potential Auschwitz.

So there it is. We have identified the core Jewish conviction that makes Jews keep pushing relentlessly for mass immigration, even the mass immigration of their deadliest enemies. In the thought-process of Jews, to keep Jew-hating Muslims out of America would feed exclusionary attitudes among America’s white Gentile majority that could result in another Jewish Holocaust. Why Jews welcome Muslims The View from the Right, December 9, 2002.

Moreover, Jewish organizations have combined advocating high levels of immigration with simultaneously advocating intensification of police-state-type controls to ensure Jewish security. For example, in Germany even before the refugee influx, synagogues, Jewish schools and other organizations have been under constant police protection. [Migrant Influx In Germany Raises Fears Of Anti-Semitism, By Alison Smale, NYT, January 26, 2016]

Thus, for Jewish organizations, an obvious upside of refugee crime is that it provide a rationale for policies that have long been advocated by many in the Jewish community—especially curbs on free speech, and in particular speech related to ethnicity and immigration. It is no accident that, for example, in Germany, the migrant crisis has led to a campaign to shut down Facebook criticism of the invasion—with the full cooperation of fanatical immigration enthusiast Mark Zuckerberg.

As a result, the consensus view among Jews seems to be that the transformation of the West is manageable. And if some non-elite Jews, like the upward of 9,000 who left France in 2015 [French immigration to Israel surges in summer of 2015, YNet News, June 17, 2015], emigrate to Israel because of Muslim street-level hostility, this will not impact the Jewish elites.

The only real cloud on the horizon: the possibility that Leftist political parties, powered by non-Whites and White Social Justice Warriors, will become hostile toward Israel. Thus Muslims in the UK typically end up making alliances with White Leftists critical of Israel. The Labour Party is now dependent on MSM power, Muslim votes and Jewish donors—but Jewish money has been deserting as Labour takes an ever more critical view of Israel.

The same process is brewing in the US but will take a while longer. An important harbinger: President Obama’s abstention for the UN Security Council resolution condemning the West Bank settlements. Another: the fact that Rep. Keith Ellison, who has called Israel an “apartheid state,” is a candidate for chair of the Democratic National Committee.

Anti-Israel attitudes are quite common in the Democratic Party—a recent Pew poll of Democrats found a near even split, 33% favoring Israel, 31% favoring the Palestinians. This has led to considerable angst among pro-Israel pundits like James Kirchick. [A Warning to Jewish Democrats: The Time to Fight for Your Party Is Now, by James Kirkchick, The Tablet,January 9, 2017]

If the UK is any indication, the Jewish donor base that is so critical for the Democrats will bail if the Democrats adopt anti-Israel positions. One can even imagine that in the future Jews will be far more likely to vote Republican.

In fact, one might speculate that Trump’s strongly pro-Israel stance is an attempt recruit Jewish support for his other policies, such as a ban on immigration of Muslims—much like Geert Wilders, who, like Trump, has called for restrictions on Muslim immigration while also being very pro-Israel.

I doubt this will succeed, but the logic is certainly there.

Notice that such a shift in Jewish attitudes on immigration would not be the result of low-level street crime and occasional acts of terrorism, but because of a possible loss of political control—because Muslim votes are having an effect on nationwide policy that affects Jewish interests.

To the Jewish Establishment, that is indeed very worrying.

Kevin MacDonald [email him] is emeritus professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach. His research has focused on developing evolutionary perspectives in developmental psychology, personality theory, Western culture, and ethnic relations (group evolutionary strategies). He edits and is a frequent contributor to The Occidental Observer and The Occidental Quarterly. For his website, click here.