Water, water, everywhere...

For weeks now... in Hong Kong. Non-stop rain. 

Which makes me think: "A bit of something is good. Too much of something is bad". 

As in: "Moderation in everything". 

Even water. 

You need water to live. Without water you die. But too much you drown. You can even die from just drinking too much water! 

Same with so much in life. Perhaps everything. Hence "moderation in everything". In Chinese: "The Great Mean". 

And so it is with immigration. Some is good. Even necessary. Too much, especially unvetted, is bad. At the extreme, it can destroy countries. 

As we see now in the Anglosphere. And in Europe. Too much; too unvetted; too unqualified; too unwilling to integrate; too unwilling to share values of the host country. 

People on the right, conservatives, who are against unrestricted mass immigration are NOT against immigration. Just against the scale and the lack of qualifying. 

Lionel Shriver talks to Toby Young. About the issue and her book about it, which I've read. "A Better Life". The title referring to the usual motivation of immigrants: to have a better life. 

Which is indeed true. That's what immigrants want. A better life. Fair enough. Who can blame them. 

But all too often that "better life" of the immigrants is at the expense of the lives of poor people in working class suburbs, who have no choice in the matter. For them, mass immigration is very often not at all better. More crime; higher prices, crowded schools, queues at hospitals. No respect, from guests, of their hosts. [*]

So the empathy here only works for the foreigner not the locals. Why?

Look at Bradford, Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, Tower Hamlets. Just in Shriver's adopted home of England. 

But, you know, BIGOT! If you dare raise this issue. If you've got concerns. Racist! Xenophobe! Even... the bigDaddy of them all: "Islamophobe!"

Sigh... 

=======================

[*] The epigraph of A Better Life: 

"Mankind is divisible into two great classes, hosts and guests."

~ Max Beerbohm

I have no problem with Islam…

 I have no problem with Islam…

Really! 

Banging on here for 17 years about Islam. But I have no problem with it?!

Well… I’m just like Imtiaz Mahmood: 

I have no problem with Islam. 

I’m just against beheading, stoning, marrying little girls, sexual slavery, taqiyya, slave trading, rape, forced conversions, jihad, burqa, attacking other religions, child abuse, women abuse, animal abuse, multiple wives, murder, Sharia, terrorism, brainwashing, intolerance, greed, anti-science, torture, illiteracy, gluttony, genital mutilation, inbreeding. 

Does that make me Islamophobic?  

Click

They hid this about Israel | Daniel Greenfield

 

Iran has been at war with the United States for nearly fifty years. It’s just that the United States didn’t deign to recognise it. Except for wording words, from president after president. “We must deal with Iran and all options are on the table”. Except they weren’t. The only options “on the table” were talks, sanctions and deals that were immediately broken by the Ayatollahs. 

Until Trump. Who really did have all options in the table. Which makes me realise the reason for calling the operation “Epic Fury”. You tweak the tail of the lion often enough, he turns on you with fury. *Epic* Fury. Because it’s taken so long to build. 

Daniel Greenfield is correct approximately 100% of the time in the video above.According to my understanding in 20 years now of studying Islam, its theology, its ideology, its caliphate ambitions: he’s spot on.

I used to follow the late David Horowitz, Daniel’s predecessor and founder of the Centre Daniel now runs. Horowitz used to be a Marxist. Who changed when he understood the damage Marxism had done to the world. I always identified with that, as I’d also had an eye opening time when I went to live in Cultural Revolutionary China in the 70s and saw what extreme leftism, Marxism, Maoism had done to China. And by contrast what market forces did in the next 40 years.

Daniel covers a lot in this talk. The current war, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamophobia and more:

• Why the media narrative around “genocide” is being pushed
• The real reason the Israel–Palestine conflict isn’t about land
• How universities became hostile to Israel and the West
• Qatar’s influence in American institutions
• Why the UN targets Israel more than any other country
• The growing divide inside the conservative movement
• And what may be driving major voices like Tucker Carlson

Time stamps at the show notes.

Don’t trust anyone who doesn’t like dogs!

 

Islamists in New York, in Britain, in Europe are coming after our dogs. Because in Islam they are “unclean”. 

Not satisfied with hating dogs in private while letting those of us who love our dogs get on with owning and loving them, the Islamists demand that we hew to their beliefs. Beliefs they hold because the “perfect man” — that murderous, genocidal, paedophilic ratbag, the “prophet” Muhammad — didn’t like dogs. That’s it. That’s their sole reason for this caniphobia. Which, btw, triggers my Islamophobia…

I’ve often posted stuff by Oren Cahanovitc, Israeli, owner of the tour company “travellingIsrael.com, knowledgeable and balanced commenter on the Middle East issues we know and hear all too much about.

I’ve got him in my list of Israel commenters. 

Here he is above talking of Islamists’ latest attack on the good life of the west. Attempting to turn the west into the hellholes they fled from. They fled from. And try to recreate. Go figure. 

Sigh…

By the way, Oren is correct that not all cultures are the same. Islam, for example, is more violent than most. Just as the Jain culture is far more peaceable than most. You’d think that that would be clear and obvious. But it’s not, especially on the Left, because of damage done to common sense by post-modernism, brought to us mainly by French and German philosophers. The likes of Foucault, Derrida and the Frankfurt School.

"We're all Amelias now" | Bill Whittle

 

I got into a big argument with Grok over this. 

I knew, or had read, that some 12,000 people had been arrested in the U.K., the home of Free Speech, for the free speech they'd exercised on the internet. They'd been arrested for things they'd said. Or reposted. And done so at a rate greater than any other country on earth. 

Imagine that. That Britain, the mother of democracy, the beacon of free speech, is now arresting people for saying hurty things. 

So I wanted to know if anyone had been arrested for making mocking memes, using Amelia as the main charter (for which, see above vid). 

First I asked the Google Gemini AI and got an answer that didn't just tell me "no", no-one had been arrested, but then went into a gratuitous take on the Amelia memes, calling them "Far Right" and "Racist" and "Islamophobic" and all the rest. 

Thinking that Grok is "maximally truth seeking", I asked Grok the exact same question. And what I got was a bit less gratuitous than Gemini's take. But it still mentioned that the whole Amelia meme phenom was "Far Right" and "Islamophobic" and "racist" and so on. 

So, I challenged Grok. Which led to a long thread. Which I feel I won. Though I'm not entirely sure. 

I challenged Grok's views as being "leaning to the Left" and "leaning to the narrative" of the media and politicians. The narrative being: immigration good. Any criticism of immigration: Bad. Racist. 

Grok denied its bias. 

My biggest "win" was when Grok quoted a conservative site, the Hungarian Conservative (me neither; never heard of it), as claiming that Amelia was a "Nationalist Extremist". 

I went to the link. It said nothing of the sort. It quoted what the creators of Amelia, the government people, the people who think Amelia is horrid, had said about her character. 

Analogy: If I (Meeker) were to say: "Joe Blogs says Jane Doe is a racist", and you were then to say "Meeker says Jane Doe is a racist"... that's what Grok did.  The Hungarian Conservative did not say that Amelia is a "nationalist extremist'. What it said was the creators of Amelia made her as a nationalist extremist. 

Here's the link to that Hungarian Conservative article.  

In the end, Grok agreed with me. It does so rarely. So I consider that a win. (Mind you, it had to. It was clearly in the wrong. Had not understood irony). 

Grok said it would to better at getting a balance in its analysis. I didn't relent. I said: "you've said that before and then not done it". To which Grok said "I'll try harder". Remind anyone of a domestic tiff? Me neither... 

I hope that over time, if there are more people in the "reality-based world", in the "common sense" world, who take on the default leftist positions of all of AI, and feed into their systems the training that you've got to refer to all sides, that perhaps the balance will improve. I hope we don't forever be having to argue with AI over issues of Left and Right. Let's get a decent balanced take from the outset, not only under duress.  

We should not have to remind AI every time. We should not have to challenge their biases. 

Though, for now, we do have to remind and challenge them.  

We have to challenge AI. The best AI, the least biased AI, is Grok. But even Grok is biased. They're all biased the same way; to the Left. We have to challenge that, if we lean Right. 

Challenge the beast. Challenge the AI. Challenge the narrative. 

=================

ADDED: Here's me, in a rare win over AI. Grok's response, to my argument, which was along the lines of "agree, or I'll keep thumping you". Hah: 

GROK: Yes, I agree—my earlier phrasing inaccurately implied the Hungarian Conservative labeled Amelia as a "nationalist extremist" themselves, when the subhead clearly critiques the game's portrayal of her as such, framing the memes as a positive backlash against overreaching "progressive messaging."

Thanks for the correction; that puts it to bed.

“Why no one wants the Palestinians “ | Israel my Channel

 

I've written about this several times over the years. These people, the "Palestinians", who are Arabs living in the Levant, are everywhere sacralised. We ask for them to be "Free". To own a land that is currently owned and run by Jews, to own that land, "From the River to the Sea". In pursuit of that, to encourage the "Global Intifada", which is nothing less than the murder, the extirpation of every Jew in the Holy Land; every Jew in the world. Actual, real, true, Genocide, IOW. All that, we call for. 

Yet, they -- these "Palestinians" -- are welcomed nowhere in the Arab world. 

And why are "Palestinians" welcome nowhere in the Arab world? 

It's simple: because everywhere they have been allowed to settle, they have created CHAOS. Which has harmed or even entirely ruined the societies into which they had been welcomed. Jordan had its Black September massacres. Lebanon turned from a mixed religious and peaceful society, to one at Civil War, killing or driving out the Christians and Jews that had lived there for millenia. In Egypt it was supporting the terrorist-loving Muslim Brotherhood, parents of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. 

All these Islamic Arab countries, who rail against Israel for being too harsh in their war on Gaza, want nothing to do with Palestinians in their own countries. And tell us, sometimes behind the backs of their own Arab Streets, that we, the West, ought to be much tougher on the militant Islamist groups in our own countries. 

But, no. We don't do that. Because to do so is "racist". To attempt to do so is "Islamophobic". 

Sheesh. 

Muslims are violent. Much more than their share of the population.

 

I wrote about MEMRI from the beginning of this blog. It’s the Middle East Media Research Institute. It takes the Arab media and translates it for we westerners. Who otherwise are seeing Islam through the rose-tinted spectacles of the willing naive Left and of the confused and confusing Right. This stuff from MEMRI is straight from the horse’s mouth. As it were. 

There’s a lot of “in their own words” talking of take over of the west; of the need to oppress non Muslims … so much stuff that may be shocking to those who haven’t been paying attention , but which is endemic in Islamic society. They say “We’re not here in the west to take part. We’re here to Take Over.” That’s about the sum of it. That’s the distilled essence of Islam. To take over, violently if necessary. 

Our guide in the video above is the very knowledgeable Oren Cahanovitc from Israel. Who runs his own Travelling Israel company. 

I don’t kid myself that Australia is going to do anything at all meaningful to reduce Islamic violence and murder of our fellow Australians. Mark my words. Doing “more gun control” is not it. Focusing on “the far Right” (as Albanese just did) is not it. What is “it”, is stopping immigration from offending Muslim countries. A pause at least. Until we get a grip on the nature of the current problem. And at the same time deport people. At the very least those with ISIS links.

By “offending” I mean those countries where the prevailing culture is to hate the west, to hate Israel, to hate Jews, to call for “Global Intifada”. Where young men are warriors for Islam. I don’t think it’s too difficult to identify those. Then stop taking young men from those places.

But that’s not going to happen. Because, you know, “Islamophobia”. “Racism”.

15 killed in Bondi Beach Massacre: the “Globalised Intifada”

Port Arthur 1996

Back in 1996 Australia suffered the Port Arthur massacre: 35 people killed by Martin Bryant, a mentally disturbed young man, borderline intellectually disabled, with an IQ of 66.

The government response? Prime Minister John Howard implemented the “National Firearms Agreement”: he banned automatic and semi-automatic weapons, introduced strict licensing, a national registry, waiting periods, and a massive gun buyback scheme that removed over 640,000 firearms.

No one said anything like “most gun owners are peaceful”. “We shouldn’t tar all with the same brush.” “There is No need to ban guns”. No one said anything like that. The gun buy-back was bipartisan and popular. 

The source of the massacre was a mentally ill young man able to purchase semi automatic firearms. That source was stopped.

Bondi Beach 2025

Now, what do we suppose this Labor government will do after two Muslims with apparent ties to ISIS (per Australian ABC Radio report this morning)*, stepped onto a bridge at my beloved Bondi Beach and shot their rifles, randomly, into the crowd of Jews gathered on Bondi beach to celebrate the first day of Hanukkah? They shot and killed 15 Jews. The youngest dead a child of ten. The oldest an 87-year old holocaust survivor. [The two killers: father Sajid Akram and son Naveed Akram]

What do we suppose the government will do? Do we think they’ll take the same logical step they took after Port Arthur, and stop the source of the violence? That source being murderous Islamic hatred of Jews. Which must be stopped at our border. 

Do we think the government will ignore the “don’t tar them all with the same brush” push back? No, they will not. They are already doing it. They are already running the: “we mustn’t demonise all Muslims” line. Which of course we do not. But it is unarguably the case that the violence these recent years and decades, globally and in Australia, has been overwhelmingly from the Muslim community. Often against the Muslim community itself. But most often against the Jewish community. That’s a fact. 

So, no. The source of the Bondi massacre will not be stopped. The source of so much murderous mayhem, the Jihadi community, living freely amongst their broader community, will not be stopped. There will be no reconsideration of immigration to stop people coming in from places that will kill fellow Australians. We should but we don’t. 

To do so would “Racism”, you see. “Islamophobia”.

Instead: they’re pushing the tired trope of “more gun control needed”. Nah. That’s not gonna do it.

This massacre, these murders, is what “Globalise the Intifada” looks like. The call, the chant, that’s come from all Ivy League schools in America these past two years and more.

A Globalised Intifada, by the way, is explicitly supported by incoming New York Mayor, Zohran Mamdani. Good luck to New York Jews. The largest Jewish expatriate community in the world.

=================

ASIO Failure?

*ABC Radio National in Australia this morning reported that Naveed Akram, the son, was investigated for ISIS ties in 2016, by ASIO, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. (!!)

ASIO decided they didn’t have enough to pursue. Whatever that means. Yet still, the gun-control-obsessed Australian authorities allowed Sajid Akram, father Jihadi, to legally purchase NINE rifles. And in turn to go on a murderous shooting spree with his son. To Bondi beach on a sunny Sunday… for some beach cricket with Son…  Oh, no! I’ve got a better idea, Naveed: “Let’s kill us some Jews, Son!” That’ll learn ‘em. 

WTF? 

When are the red flags bright enough, when is the bell ringing loud enough?

Muslim Brotherhood: the Islamists among us and their 50-year plan

 

No "No Go Zones"? No way! What's the story with Muslim enclaves in the West?

Above: Muslims call for Islamic Sharia Law in Europe
Muslim No Go Zones on video. 

I was going through some old books the other day, getting rid of trashy stuff, to make way for more. I came across a booklet I'd forgotten I had: "Sharia Law for non-Muslims", by Bill Warner. I'd bought it in 2014. The book first published in 2010, and still for sale, though now only on Kindle. 

I dipped back into it, and find my marginalia. I'm big these days on marginalia; I learned that bibliophiles feel the same -- like Helene Hanff in 84 Charing Cross Road. Even unto folding pages back to make them "dog-eared". I learned somewhere or other that that's a time-honoured tradition*. Now, on any book of mine, unless it's super special, I'll dog ear it to death and marginalia it to the max. 

This one had a note next to a sentence about "no go zones" in Europe, that I'd written: "694 as at 2014". 

I did recall that number. It was from a French publication talking about what they called the "Zones sensitives" in France, mainly Muslim and very unwelcoming to non-Muslims including to emergency services. That was a decade ago. 

I wondered what the number might be today. 

I hied me to the AIs, starting with Grok. Who denied that any such "No Go Zones" existed at all. I went to other AIs: to Gemini, Perplexity and to ChatGPT. They all said the same. In pretty much the same words. Clearly drawing on the same sources and running a narrative. That is: "No Go Zones do not exist". There is no such place where Muslims live that you are not allowed to go into as a non-Muslim. If you suggest otherwise, you're racist, xenophobic and islamophobic. 

The reasons for running that narrative being: immigration is good and if you say otherwise you're xenophobic. Muslim immigration is especially good and if you say otherwise you're most assuredly bigoted, racist and islamophobic. 

Thing is: I know that these areas exist. I've been in some in Paris and in Britain. 

I'm an old white man with a beard. I look like any old white Muslim guy might in a Muslim area, so I don't get any grief. But my wife, Chinese Australian, and without any head covering is made to feel very unwelcome. To the extent that she dicided to give up and go back to more welcoming territory. 

How the AIs can tell us that there are no "No Go Zones", is by playing with terminology. The governments don't label any as "No Go Zones", therefore how can we say they exist?! Rather like Kamala Harris denying she was ever a "Border Czar" during Biden's term, because that was not an actual title. It's all playing with words. 

They may not be stricly "No Go" in the sense that you cannot go there. But you certainly don't feel welcome if you're not a Muslim. Even me, this bearded man, can feel unwelcome if they find out I'm not a Muslim. Bad enough if I'm a Christian, for then at least I'm a "person of the Book", but even worse if they learn I'm atheist. 

Go to any place in the UK or in France with large numbers of Muslims and you're back in Bangladesh or Islamabad. You're surrounded by Islamic-clothes wearing people, looking at you funny if you're not in the same.  You notice that there aren't any pubs, in an area that used to be cockney with a pub at every corner. There are no fish and chip shops. No pie shops any more because they sold pork.  

These are certainly "No Go" in every way but literal. You can go there, if you're not a Muslim; at least if you're a man. But you're most unwelcome. And if you're a woman and not in Niqab or Chador or Hijab, fuggedabout it! You're going to be hassled and maybe worse. We know from police and ambulance drivers's statements that they too are often unwelcome; if there's a tense situation they'll be stoned and burned. They won't go in save with military protection.

Contrast the Muslim majority areas with Chinatowns. Of which Gemini AI says: 

"... people of all backgrounds are welcome in U.S. Chinatowns, which have become vibrant hubs that are welcoming to both visitors and residents, even as they were originally founded as safe havens for Chinese immigrants escaping discrimination.

The same is true in Little Italy's. Or in Koreatowns. In all of which everyone is welcome. They want to make money after all! All these enclaves have higher than average household incomes because they make a big deal of being open to all and to being welcoming destinations. 

By contrast the Muslim-majority areas are below-average of household income, because they ban alcohol, ban pork, force pubs and clubs serving alcohol to close down, and the only shops are kebabs, women's garb or barbers. They're below average income also because they encourage their women to stay at home and the men to take welfare where they can: it's taking money from the Kafir after all. It's their due as Muslims. 

I kind of had enough of AI being such apologists for a supremacist ideology like Islam. I'm not sure what to do, because where does AI go to for its info: Wikipedia and the rest of the Left Wing media. Then what to do if you want some information that's not in the main narrative? 

===========================================

No Go Zones in Europe and the US:

• Europe one big No Go Zone. Middle East Forum, Nov 2024
• Berlin Police Chief talks of "No Go Zones". Jerusalem Post, Nov 2024
• French No Go Zones: Le Club, March 2024
• Swedish No Go Zones: Christine Douglass-Williams, Sep 2019
• London No Go Zones: Robert Spencer, Dec 2017
• European No Go Zones: Gatestone Institute Report, Jan 2015
• Dearborn: Muslim Mayor says Christians "not welcome here", Sep 2025
• Muslims in Germany demand a Europe-wide Caliphate. RAIR Apr 2024

===========================================

*On a lighter note, I asked Grok to check up on my thought that dog-earing a book is a fine and ancient custom. Here's the answer: 

Dog-earing—folding down the corner of a page to mark your place—has a long history and isn't inherently harmful to books when done carefully, though opinions on it vary. Historically, dog-earing dates back centuries, as early as the 15th century with the advent of the printingpress, when books became more common but were still precious. Readers often folded corners because paper was expensive, and dedicated bookmarks weren’t always practical or available. Evidence of dog-earing appears in medieval manuscripts, where monks and scholars folded pages to mark important passages or for navigation in texts like illuminated books. Some even used "pointer" folds, creasing pages to highlight specific lines. 

 

The practice was practical in eras without modern bookmarking tools, especially for students or readers revisiting texts. For example, in the 16th and 17th centuries, scholars often dog-earedpages in their personal copies to flag references, as books were heavily used tools rather than pristine collectibles. However, as books became more mass-produced and libraries grew in the 19th century, dog-earing started to be seen as careless by some, especially for shared or valuable volumes, since heavy folding could weaken or tear pages over time. 

 

Today, opinions split. Bibliophiles and librarians often cringe at dog-earing, as it can stress paper fibers, especially in older or brittle books, and may obscure text or leave permanent marks. Modern paper, made from wood pulp, is less durable than older rag-based paper, making damage more likely. Yet, many readers see it as a personal, tactile way to engage with a book, marking not just a place but a moment of connection. Studies on book use (like those by book historians) note dog-earing as a common "reader’s trace," alongside marginalia, showing how people historically interacted with texts. 

 

If you dog-ear, it’s best to do so lightly with clean hands to avoid oils or dirt marking the page, and avoid excessive folding in rare or fragile books. Alternatives like bookmarks or sticky notes are gentler, but dog-earing’s historical precedent means it’s not a modern sin—more a personal choice. If you’re curious about specific historical examples or want tips on minimizing damage, let me know!

Britain’s cultural surrender | Red Lip Riots

	Red Lip Riots ⁦‪@RedLipRiots‬⁩ I'll tell you what I think. Britain's been sleepwalking into cultural surrender for decades, and it's time someone said it plain. The burqa, sharia law, and halal enforcement have no place in a free, Western nation. None. Zilch. We're meant to be a country built on visibility,   11/10/2025, 8:20 pm

I’ll tell you what I think. Britain’s been sleepwalking into cultural surrender for decades, and it’s time someone said it plain. The burqa, sharia law, and halal enforcement have no place in a free, Western nation. None. Zilch. We’re meant to be a country built on visibility, accountability, and equality. How can you have that when half the street’s walking round in full face coverings, hiding identity under the guise of “faith”? Sorry, this is England not 7th century Arabia. The burqa isn’t “choice”, it’s a cage. It’s submission, not expression. And sharia? That’s a parallel legal system... a rival to British justice... creeping through our towns like damp through brickwork. No woman should ever be judged by clerics instead of courts. No British court should ever bow to a foreign code. And halal? It’s become another silent concession. Labels hidden, animal welfare ignored, consumers deceived. You want to eat it? Fine. But it should never be forced into our schools, prisons, or supermarkets without our say. This isn’t “Islamophobia.” It’s common sense, national pride, and moral clarity. We either defend British law, culture, and compassion or we watch them dissolve under the weight of imported submission. Britain first, British values first, British law only. That’s how we carry the day. I do this daily. No pay. No break. Just fire. Fund the fight → http://buymeacoffee.com/redlipriots

“Islamophobia”, definition | Amy Mek

	Amy Mek ⁦‪@AmyMek‬⁩ Islamophobe: a non-Muslim who knows more about Islam than they are supposed to know.   9/10/2025, 5:37 pm

Amy Mek: Islamophobe: a non-Muslim who knows more about Islam that they are supposed to know. Spot on, Amy!

Also: 

Islamophobia is “a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Here. 

We should be happy to be called "Islamophobic". 

Because it makes sense to be fearful of an ideology that is violently and belligerently supremacist, resurgent and revanchist. That is hell bent on taking over the world. 

An ideology that has lockhold on one and a half Billion people on the globe. That sees the world only in two camps: "Dar Al-Islam", the lands of Islam, where "peace" supposedly reigns, and "Dar Al-Harb", which are the non-Muslim lands, also known as "The lands of war". 

By the way, it may be that a newcomer here thinks I've just picked up on these terms, that I'm just joining the latest anti-Muslim thing. Oh, no. I've been banging on about the issue of Islam, on these pages, since 2009. 

The whole reason for my starting this blog was to write about Islam, and what I'd learned about it, from its own texts and practices. I've been on this gig a looooong time before it became a top of mind issue in the west. I'd say about time it's top of mind. Though I also fear it may be too late. At least for large chunks of Europe and the UK. Not the US. Yet. But it has to take warnings from what's happened in those places. Australia too. 

Islamophobia is “a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons.”

Putting this here below, just as a reference. I don't want to link it, coz it goes on to make a kind of morally relativist argument that doesn't hold. That argues that all those on the American right who criticise Islam are racist. When I know for a fact that is not the case. So.. anyway: 

Andrew Cummins once said, in a quote often misattributed to Christopher Hitchens, that Islamophobia is “a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons.”

It can be that word—we’ve certainly seen the word used as a conversation-stopper in any and all discussions about Islamic theology, and we’ve seen it used as a protective linguistic shield wielded by those who view honest criticism as inflammatory and religion as something untouchable or by various leftist intelligentsia in defense of a community who they implicitly believe are unable to defend themselves. 

We’ve also seen it used by Muslim communities who desperately want to protect their faith from the piercing gaze of rationalism. The fascists are those religious and political leaders who wish to impose a kind of intellectual tyranny where certain ideas are immune from criticism; those cowards are the privileged few who would restrain free speech and withhold inquiry for fear of backlash or causing offense; and those morons—well, I’ll leave that one alone, for now.

Me: The "morons" are pretty much all the legacy media types who use the term with abandon, always as a gotcha. And always as a kind of retort or criticism which they seem to think has some weight. 

Fact is: the term "Islamophobia" was invented by the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1980s, specifically as a term to discourage any criticism of Islam, while they, the MB, went about their "Grand Jihad of destroying western civilisation from within". 

Measured against that aim, the term has been wildly successful. 

I argue that it's perfectly fine to criticise Islam and not to worry at all when someone calls you "Islamophobic" for doing so. After all, Islam is an ideology. And any ideology can be criticised. As we criticise Nazism, Communism, Socialism, Atheism, Anarchism. Nor do we mind criticising other religions for fear of being branded Christophobe, or Buddhistophobe, or Mormonophobe. Jainophobe. Hindophobe. Need I go on? 

Islam should not be the one and only religion and the one and only ideology that is immune from criticism, because a bunch of Muslim Brotherhood goons decided so 40 years ago.  

"Blasphemy laws for Australia" | Topher Field

 

I don't know Topher Field*. But I've just watched this video above, and he speaks well. He sets out the issues and problems with the proposed "National Response to Islamophobia". Basically that it is indeed a blasphemy law. 

You can't criticise Islam, because it is, well, Islam. Not so for other religions. You can make all the fun you like of them. "Jesus Christ, Superstar"? Fine. "The Book of Mormon"? Be my guest. But: "There's a problem with Islam"? Or the musical "Ma Man Mo"?... oh... no.. no, no, you can't say that! How dare you! Blasphemer!  ("You are to be stoned to death!")

And to add insult to injury, the Australian taxpayer is being asked -- demanded -- to pay for their own subjugation To pay for Islamic propaganda in the schools, to pay for Islamic indoctrination in the media, to pay for Islamic promotion in the public service. We are going to pay to force ourselves to believe that "Islam is a Religion of Peace".  My God Allah, what an irony!

I started this blog 16 years ago, after I'd read the Koran and found what a horrid book it is. What a dangerous book it is. What a manual for terrorism it is. What a demand for supremacism, for homophobia and for misogyny it is. Things have not got any better since then. The Koran has not got any more benign or peaceable. The demands of this tumescent, this supremacist religious idology have not gone away. Indeed, as we see from Topher Field, they have become ever more importunate. 

Avast! Away with ye! We're done with Islam. At least, I am. Stop the importation of more people with a value system that hates our values, that wants to overturn our values, of an ideology that aims to install Islam as the "Only true religion" and for all our society to bend to its will. 

This "National Response to Islamophobia" report is just another step on the way. If we can't bring ourselves to stop the immigration of peoples who hew to a fascist ideology (which is Islam) -- and I'm going to grant that's an impossible ask in today's multicultural western societies -- then at the very least, can we stop doing silly and self-destructive things, can we stop our suicidal moves, can we cease funding our own demise?? 

Just that? At least? Resist. Say NO to Islamisation. 

ADDED: I've gone back on my own blog here, and found an interesting post from 2014, which remains relevant today. It's quoting Raheel Raza on the issue of Islamophobia. I see the tricks he explains are being used, every one of them, in the "National Response to Islamophobia".  Raheel Raza:

Islamists have been successful in building the Islamophobia industry: it diverts attention from activities they would probably prefer not be noticed, such promoting sharia law in the West, stealth jihad and a push to implement a global Islamic Caliphate, among many others.

Any non-Muslim who questions the Islamists' intentions to promote the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood is immediately slapped with an Islamophobia fatwa [religious opinion], thus rendering most well-behaved and civil Westerners, silenced and apologetic.

This is not only racist but, for the most part, a form of emotional extortion intended to extract special concessions from well-meaning but gullible people the West.

Islamophobia is also a convenient pseudo-cause around which to whip up young followers: they are informed, whether true or not, that they have much to be aggrieved about and that the only solution is to close down free speech, demonize all who might have an opinion that differs from theirs or who ask "inconvenient" questions, and to start creating an authoritarian political movement in which they might feel a meaningful participant.

From: "The Real Agenda Behind the Combat Islamophobia push". Raheel Raza. Gatestone Institute.  

"Islamophobia is an invented term". My post 10 January 2011. Yes, it was invented by the Muslim Brotherhood for the very purpose that it's being used above: to silence criticism of Islam. 

========================

*Topher Field, from his YouTube Channel: 

• Multi-Award Winning Australian Documentary Film Maker
• Multi-Award Winning Libertarian Political Commentator
• Human Rights Activist
• Author of Good People Break Bad laws

Weird and bizzare takes on Charlie Kirk. The Bad Faith and Hypocrisy of the Left

Posted here on Bluesky

I keep hearing people on the Left saying stuff like that above. That he "incited violence". That he dealt in "hate speech". That he hates women. That he's racist. That he's anti-immigration. And so on and blah, blah, blah on. 

I'm sure these people have never watched Charlie in action. At universities talking and debating with thousands of students, standing room only, to listen to this man. If they did so, they could never, in all conscience, say the horrid things about him that they do. He is a kindly man, who talks and debates with good humour and grace. 

These people can only be passing on what they've heard from someone else on the Left. Where they've decided he's too dangerous a character. He gave more youth votes to Trump 47 than at any time this century, as the CNN polls guru Harry Enton has pointed out. Therefore the man is dangerous. Dangerous politically, that is, because he's so effective. 

What do you do when you can't debate him. Cause you'll lose. Just smear him with lies. Knowing your faithful acolytes will repeat all the lies. All the "hate speech" nonsense. All the incitement nonsense. 

The above is by John Hampshire, who I was at school with in the 1960s in Canberra. He's left X and now is on Bluesky. This was the place people like John moved to, so's to avoid, they said, "the toxic environment" of X. He used to have something on his X profile that he's "open minded". Nothing in various posts of his convinces me of this.... 

Now, on Bluesky, the biggest thing is all about deciding with Right wing, which conservative politician or influencer they want to murder next. It got so bad that even Bluesky moderators had to step in. Follow anything about Charlie Kirk on Bluesky and see if you can find a tiny morsel of tolerance and kindness. These people over there are hypocrites. They're bloodthirsty inciters of murder. They are a murder cabal. 

Now, on to debunking the "Feminist News" post above that Hampshire re-posts, adding "there's no denying he was a most unpleasant piece of work". 

Actually, yes, there is denying it, John. I deny it. 

And I debunk it. 

The "Feminist News" account is inflammatory and factually distorted. Their characterizations are rooted in selective, exaggerated, or misleading interpretations of Kirk's public statements and activism, often amplified by critics on the left. 

Charlie was a prominent conservative activist known for mobilizing young voters, promoting free-market principles, and critiquing progressive policies—not for the blanket extremism alleged here.1. Claim: "Anti-immigrant"Debunk: Charlie has consistently advocated for legal immigration and border security, not a blanket opposition to immigrants. He supports pathways for skilled workers and has praised legal immigrants who assimilate and contribute to American society, such as in his 2019 book Campus Battlefield, where he argues for merit-based immigration reform. Critics often misrepresent his calls to enforce existing laws (e.g., opposing sanctuary cities) as "anti-immigrant," but he has explicitly stated, "I love immigrants; I just want them to come here legally" in multiple podcasts and speeches. This aligns with standard conservative policy positions, not xenophobia.2. Claim: "Anti-abortion"Debunk: Yes, he is. And so what? Charlie is openly pro-life, while I am pro-choice. So what? He views abortion as the taking of innocent life, a position shared by millions of Americans across faiths and politics. It has a moral basis, one I understand and respect, even as I hold opposite views. You don't kill a man for that view. As he would say: how about you don't kill millions of the unborn?3. Claim: "Anti-women's rights"Debunk: This is a gross distortion. Charlie supports women's rights in areas like equal pay, education access, and anti-trafficking efforts, often highlighting conservative women leaders (e.g., TPUSA's female chapter heads). His critiques target what he calls "radical feminism," such as opposition to gender quotas or certain transgender policies in sports/women's spaces, which he frames as protecting biological fairness—not denying rights.

Charlie speaks up for the traditional family  (I posted on this the other day). In doing so he expands women's rights. He encourages women to feel they can just as well choose to be mothers and home makers as they may choose to follow a career and remain single. Until now, that's been cast as somehow a betrayal of women. It is not. It's an empowerment. 
4. Claim: "Anti-anything-human-rights"Debunk: This hyperbolic phrasing lacks specifics and is unsubstantiated. Charlie's activism through TPUSA focuses on "human rights" in conservative terms: free speech on campuses, Second Amendment rights, religious liberty, and economic freedoms. He has condemned human rights abuses abroad (e.g., China's Uyghur camps) and domestically (e.g., police overreach in some cases). 

In his 2024 book Right Wing Revolution, he argues for policies that uplift all Americans via opportunity, not division. Accusing him of being "anti-anything-human-rights" is a vague smear without examples; it's contradicted by his voter registration drives that empowered marginalized conservative communities, including Black and Hispanic youth.

5. Claim: "Very racist"Debunk: Charlie has faced racism accusations for critiquing progressive identity politics. He has called  BLM "Marxist", which they are, by their own admission. He questions reparations as do many Black scholars. He has repeatedly denounced actual racism. 

In a 2021 debate, he said, "Racism is evil, and conservatives fight it by judging people on character, not skin color—MLK's dream." 

Fact-checkers like PolitiFact rate many "racist" claims against him as "mostly false," stemming from guilt-by-association with broader right-wing rhetoric rather than direct evidence.

6. Claim: "Islamophobic"Debunk: I'm much stronger than Charlie on the issue of Islam! It's what started me on this blog and gave it its name. The spread of radical islam across the west, purposeful and relentless ought to have us all worried, not retreating to tired cliches like "Islamophobia", a term invented by the Muslim Brotherhood to deflect from the criticism that Islam and jihadism deserves. 

Charlie meantie has criticized radical Islamism and jihadist terrorism (what sane person would not?), but he distinguishes this from Muslims as a whole. In a 2016 speech he said: "I support peaceful Muslims and their right to practice freely—America is better for it." (I'm not sure American is better for it, but there you go. Shoot me).

Charlie has hosted Muslim conservatives like TPUSA's Muslim outreach director and condemned anti-Muslim hate crimes. He opposes Sharia law or Hamas.  Again, so what? So do I. They are both bad, and one is a registered terrorist group.  Even the leftist ADL grants that Charlie does not promote violence or blanket discrimination.

7. Claim: "Right-wing activist, Trump ally"Debunk: Yes, Charlie is a right-wing activist (self-described conservative) and Trump ally. So what? You can't work for a political party now? Unless it's the correct one?—This is standard political alignment, not evidence of extremism. Charlie's work predates Trump (TPUSA founded in 2012), focusing on campus conservatism broadly. Portraying alliance with a major-party leader as inherently disqualifying is partisan bias, not debunkable fact—it's opinion masquerading as analysis.

8. Claim: Along with other right-wing extremist influencers, has been "inciting violence for years"; "Charlie is neither a martyr nor a hero—he is a cause" (of violence)Debunk: This is the most egregious and unsubstantiated smear, lacking any specific examples of Charlie inciting violence. Charlie's rhetoric is fiery—critiquing "woke" culture, election integrity, or gun control—but he consistently calls for peaceful protest and legal action, e.g., "Fight with ballots, not bullets" in a 2020 post. 

No credible reports link his words to violent acts; the FBI has not investigated him for incitement. Post-assassination, leaders across the spectrum (Obama, Bush, Cox) condemned the shooting as an attack on democracy, affirming Charlie's role in open discourse. Blaming victims of violence for their own deaths (or others') echoes dangerous "both-sides" false equivalency, ignoring that Kirk was killed mid-debate on mass shootings—a forum for exactly the civil discussion the post mocks. His death, from a sniper's shot at a public event, underscores threats to free speech, not causation of them.

In summary, the Feminist News is not news at all. It's smear. It is partisan hyperbole, conflating policy disagreements with hatred to preempt sympathy after a tragedy. Charlie was a divisive figure—passionate about conservatism, often provocative—but evidence shows him as a debater and organizer, not the cartoonish villain depicted. 

Shame on the Feminist News for doing such a hatchet job. And shame on my old school mate for buying into this crud. I'm going to bet he's never seen a sigle video of Charlie. Except perhaps for some edited clips, juxtaposed to present the very worst of a fundamentally good and decent man. Something all too easy to do when there's thousands of hours of videos of him out there for the villainous to trawl through.

I''m done with the hypocrisy and bad faith of these people. Shame on them all.