Salman Rushdie and Free Speech

By Tobias Langdon for the Occidental Observer

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 punishments 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 a 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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.