Starmer attending an Iftar reception in 2025. Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

3,638 words

Donald Trump is always on the lookout for insulting nicknames for his political enemies. Given his current falling out with Sir Keir Starmer over the Iran War, I would like to hereby suggest the President begin calling the dismal UK Prime Minister “Sir Taqiyya” instead. If by some miracle Trump happens to be reading this article (and Donald Trump reading would indeed be a miracle) he may need some initial instruction in what this abusive moniker means, though.

“Taqiyya” is the noted Muslim cant-based practice of lying in public to advance the future interests of Islam: saying “We come in peace!” when they land on Western shores begging asylum, for example, even when they happen to have large tattoos of AK-47s on their faces. Many mainstream sources like Wikipedia may tell you taqiyya is simply a blameless defensive tactic of hiding your religion when there is deadly anti-Muslim prejudice lurking all around you, but please ignore such soothing lies—they’re examples of taqiyya in and of themselves. And, anyone who disagrees can easily be accused of peddling “Islamophobia.” You see how this whole scam works now?

Although not a Muslim personally, merely beholden to them for votes, Sir Taqiyya himself is an expert liar in the service of Mecca—the man must really dislike his Jewish wife. His current chief fib is that, in seeking to introduce a suite of badly disguised national neo-blasphemy measures protecting Muslims, and Muslims alone, from all rational public criticism (disingenuously relabeled as being “Islamophobia” and “anti-Muslim hostility”), he is really doing no such thing. Hardline UK Muslim groups are delighted, but Sir Taqiyya reassures all others not to worry, as his proposed regulations, which enjoy broad cross-party support from the British Left, will actually add no further layers of protection to the well being of British Muslims whatsoever, merely reiterate and clarify the legal rights against persecution they already share with other diverse groups like Sikhs and Hindus. If that’s really true, then what’s the point? It would be like specifically making murder of a Muslim, or theft of a Muslim’s property, forbidden in law, when murder and theft are already illegal against absolutely anyone in a wider generic sense anyway.

The whole rationale of taqiyya is that it is supposed to be at least vaguely believable to the lies’ intended dupes, not a blatantly obvious falsehood right from the start. Britain’s incompetent PM can’t even do taqiyya right, and that’s his actual name now.

Hollow Reed

Starmer’s chief vizier entrusted with pushing this through is Steve Reed, the “Secretary of State for Communities,” a taqiyya term in itself—he’s the Secretary of State for one particular “Community,” singular, and we all know which one.

Reed reassures naysayers his looming “anti-Muslim hostility” definition will be non-statutory, thus meaning it will be perfectly legal for any freeborn Brit to call Islam and its followers nasty names if they so wish. All it will do is introduce the definition into all public bodies, like schools, universities, the NHS, police, judiciary, civil service, libraries and museums, as well as into any private media, business, church, charity or other organization whose DEI-obsessed HR department wishes henceforth to adopt it. So, unless you happen to need a job, an education, police protection, a fair trial, or urgent medical treatment, there’s no way on earth this meaningless, petty little piece of wordplay will even affect you, OK?

You can buy Greg Johnson’s Toward a New Nationalism here.

The very same week Reed lied in Parliament, a white English Sports teacher was peremptorily banned from British classrooms forever after blasting some uppity Muslims who had written online that “The laws of Allah are superior to your laws.” The teacher had suggested that, if they didn’t like British laws, the complainers should leave Britain, for which sin he lost his livelihood. This sacking currently looks on dodgy legal ground, though; once the PM’s “anti-Muslim hostility” definitions are successfully introduced across the public sector, similar dismissals will be far easier for embedded Islamophiles in bodies like the Department for Education to legally justify. And yet, as Steve Reed shamelessly taqiyyas, his measures won’t have any impact on free speech in the UK, no, none at all.

When Reed unveiled (if such a term isn’t in itself soon to be deemed innately Islamophobic) his draconian religious censorship-tool in the House of Commons last month, the Independent Muslim MP for Gaza North/Dewsbury and Batley, Iqbal Mohamed, immediately rose and asked when it was going to be applied to politicians too, demanding to know “what sanctions would apply” to any MPs who actually dared tell him the open truth about his precious killer Middle Eastern moon-cult to his arrogant bearded face. As the MP for Batley—where a schoolteacher and his innocent family had to flee into hiding after receiving Muslim death-threats just for showing students a drawing of Muhammad (the original one, not Iqbal himself) during a lesson in 2021—one wonders what kind of “sanctions” precisely Iqbal was hoping for here?

Politics of Grievance

To keep up appearances, not all those responsible for drafting Sir Taqiyya’s new definition are themselves Muslims with known links to outright Islamist organizations: that would be far too obvious! Instead, a compliant white kuffar was chosen to participate as a living human puppet also, in shape of the former Conservative Party Attorney General Dominic Grieve—or Dominic Grievance, if Trump ever feels the need to troll him, too. Grieve showed precisely where his allegiances lie after current Conservative Shadow Justice Minister Nick Timothy accurately criticized a mass Ramadan public prayer session held in Trafalgar Square as an “act of domination” over the public sphere: elsewhere, 30,000 Muslims suddenly sprouted like pajama-clad mushrooms in one Birmingham park, disrupting traffic for miles around.

Laughably, Grieve deplored Timothy’s critique upon freedom of speech grounds. It was Muslims’ sacred freedom of speech to occupy public space in an intentionally intimidating fashion all across the country, and for a non-Muslim to use his own non-sacred freedom of speech to object to it ought to be discouraged on freedom of speech grounds, paradoxically reasoned Grieve, the archetypal “complete and utter lawyer.” As Christians and others had sometimes prayed in Trafalgar Square in the past, to ban Muslims doing so, he argued, would represent a two-tier “act of discrimination against them without any basis.” Far better to introduce a two-tier “act of discrimination in favor of them without any basis” instead, like Grieve is plotting to do.

Immediately after tweeting his displeasure, Nick Timothy faced loud calls for his sacking from Sir Taqiyya and other MPs, being reported to the Parliamentary Caliph for Standards by a group led by someone called Afzal Khan, who I’m sure was just an innocent Mongol. Another Khan, Professor Javed Khan, who helped draft the anti-Islamophobia definition in the first place, suggested Timothy’s tweet could fall under its purview as “I think that politicians should be held to a higher standard” than random men in the street—after all, they have more meaningful power to resist conquest.

Because Timothy had typed that “Too many are too polite to say this” in his tweet, one appalled Lefty MP, Josh Babarinde, very impolitely replied by retweeting Nick’s words with the added response “Too many are too polite to say this. But you sound like a racist prick.” Babarinde is black, and can hurl abuse like this about a white man freely, as there are quite naturally no “anti-white hostility” laws on the statute books in Sir Taqiyya’s intentionally reverse-racist Britain, and never will be. Babarinde is also very proudly queer, by the way, so good luck to him in the future when criticizing rampant Muslim gay-hate becomes de facto forbidden, even for sainted black homosexuals like Josh.

Interestingly, one man who agreed with Nick about the public prayers being an Islamist attempt at national subjugation was Dr Taj Hargey—a leading liberal Muslim imam at the University of Oxford. Soon enough, will even Muslims find themselves being prosecuted for anti-Muslim hostility in the UK, then?

Conspiracy of Silence

In silencing “anti-Muslim hostility” for short-term Muslim votes, useful idiots like Sir Taqiyya are ultimately acting only to silence themselves at some point in the medium-term future. At the very same time Steve Reed was taqiyya-ing wildly in Parliament, the dhimmified Australian PM Anthony Albanese had agreed to mark Ramadan himself, by attending Australia’s largest mosque. Imams only accepted his attendance on one strict condition, however—that he not speak a single word, just turn up and sit there cross-legged and silent like an ISIS hostage and listen meekly to what the congregation had to say to him.

What they had to say to him was not pleasant. Outraged by Albanese’s government’s insufficiently obedient stance on the Israel-Gaza conflict, angry worshippers attempted to physically attack him, whilst yelling he was a “putrid dog” and calling him Anthony Al-Batizi, an Arabic play on words meaning “Anthony Asshole”—yet another handy nickname for Trump to start using.

Albanese’s response afterwards? Abject groveling. “Overwhelmingly, the reception was incredibly positive,” he cringed. “I thank them for the very warm reception that occurred.” What, in the Joan of Arc sense? Al-Batizi was talking out of his Gland Down Under here, but clearly felt he had no other option. After all, to do otherwise would be “Islamophobic,” wouldn’t it? Taqiyya Tony is like a microcosmic human illustration of what Starmer’s Islamophobia laws-that-really-aren’t-laws-at-all-honest-guv’nor will turn UK politicians into, likewise: corked-up djinnis in the eternal service of Islam, unable to even squeak back a single word in the face of open intimidation unless it is to praise the cork-inserters.

Pathetically hoping to justify his “anti-Muslim hostility” definition, the UK’s own Steve Reed has said “You can’t tackle a problem if you can’t describe it.” Yes, that’s the best argument against your own stupid measures, isn’t it? Because the true problem here isn’t “Islamophobia.” It’s Islam.

London Falling

Perhaps the most infuriating aspect of all this is how Muslim politicians and other such “community spokesmen” falsify via taqiyya that such proposed laws are not sinister examples of state-sponsored censorship at all. Instead, they say they are merely being drafted by our ever-caring leaders in the laudable name of enhancing public safety by forbidding not merely “Islamophobic content,” but also combatting that much more generic speech-crime known as “disinformation.”

Should it be illegal to make a video inaccurately claiming London is full of camels, for example? The city’s current Muslim Labour Party mayor, Sadiq Khan, might think so. The AI-generated video in question is an obvious joke, set in the year 2050, purporting to illustrate precisely how London will look in a mere quarter of a century’s time, should current trends of rising mass immigration and rampant street-crime continue: a squalid, mud-paved, third-world hellhole, bursting with Arab street-hawkers, petty criminals, and hump-backed mammals of the family Camelidae.

Most non-retarded viewers of the scene would realize immediately the whole thing is intended as satire, rather than a realistic extrapolation of current more genuine trends towards Islamization and degradation of the English capital. Some journalists would disagree, however, the video being chosen by leading UK broadsheet the Financial Times to illustrate precisely the kind of fake news media Mayor Khan was talking about in a recent speech he gave warning of a “dark blizzard of misinformation” being put out about London online by his political enemies from America like Tucker Carlson; Khan and Donald Trump have had several spats down the years, so Khan likes to paint any US-based critics like Carlson as simply continuing Donald’s war of words for him.

America’s leading MAGA-adjacent journalist-cum-propagandist thinks “Britain, or the UK, or England, or whatever they’re calling it” and its major cities have committed sudden racio-religious suicide through sheer existential civilizational despair, and is not shy of spreading such theories online. Carlson has a point, but Khan thinks otherwise, arguing that anyone else out there who thinks similarly to Tucker has fallen for his “misinformation” before then going on to try replicating and amplifying it themselves. So, what we have here is nothing less than a blatant disinformation merchant, Khan, smearing a dissenter, Carlson, for being a disinformation merchant. Lying by accusing an opponent of lying is just another way that taqiyya works.

Capital Punishment

Specifically, the Mayor objects to the idea that his city is full of black and Muslim killers, robbers, rapists and knifemen, the very idea being a mere racist far-Right lie, spread from abroad, which really ought to be crushed via new speech-suppressing legislative means.

You can buy Greg Johnson’s Truth, Justice, & a Nice White Country here

Khan has been London’s presiding King of Cant for ten long years now, during which time there have been more than 1,000 murders. The question is, whether this is a figure to be condemned, or to be celebrated. The mayor himself is insistent that London is an incredibly safe city, with around 100 killings per year being just the price you have to pay to live amongst some truly world-beating levels of diversity, even if the only actual camels on display there are locked away safely inside London Zoo.

As if to prove their boss correct in his utopian assertions, in early April his own police protection officers did their very best to facilitate Khan’s own easy murder by carelessly leaving a large bag of semi-automatic weaponry unattended outside his residence, without even a single passing Arab jihadi or black Yardie gangster taking advantage of the fact to shoot him in the head.

But still wary tourists will not shut up about their selfish fear of being beheaded for their earbuds, leading Khan to give his earlier-mentioned speech to the Cambridge Disinformation Summit on April 9, warning London had become the global center of a new “outrage economy” online. Fake videos emanating from Russia, China, and the American MAGAsphere were wrongly presenting his domain as a “fallen city,” being destroyed by an influx of millions of criminal foreigners, something which had zero basis in reality, he said—it only takes one criminal foreigner to do that, namely Khan himself.

Khan does have some justification for what he says here: for maximum effect, taqiyya should always be based upon at least a small grain of truth, thereby to obscure the rather larger kernel of prevailing fiction. Considered purely in terms of murders, London today surprisingly enjoys the lowest per capita rate of killings in its entire recorded history, with only 1.1 per 100,000 people being slain there in 2025. That’s not only way lower than actual third-world camel-towns like Baghdad or Damascus, but also most major US cities like Chicago (11.7) and New York (2.8), plus European rivals like Berlin (3.2) and Milan (1.6).

Therefore, the real problem with London, Khan has said, is not the actual crime there, but the false “perception” of crime there. Ill-informed anti-immigration foreign critics were just “jealous” of his city, argued Khan, because “we are diverse, we are progressive, we are successful.” But if London today is a “success,” I’d hate to see failure. Sadiq would have done better to make a joke out of it all by misquoting Samuel Johnson: “A man who is tired of London is tired of life. Fortunately, he’ll be shanked there by a Jamaican in five minutes, thus solving both problems immediately.”

Primrose Hell

Awkwardly, at around the same time Khan was speechifying, a genuine, non-AI-generated video was doing the rounds online, which was definitely not disinformation. It showed the senseless stabbing to death of a young white Londoner named Finbar Sullivan in a crowded public park, in broad daylight, in the ostensibly well-off and “safe” area of Primrose Hill, by a suspect named Oliuwadamilola Ogunyankinnu, a name which sounds like it may well mean “Diversity Is Our Strength” in Swahili or Hausa. A second man, Khalid Abdulqadir, was subsequently also arrested on suspicion of involvement, his own name meaning precisely the same thing in Arabic.

Elsewhere, in the London borough of Clapham, as I discussed on this site last week, footage spread of mobs of hundreds of almost entirely black youths on the rampage through the area’s high street, looting stores, setting off fireworks, attacking cops and terrorizing shoppers for self-created Easter Weekend entertainment. Then, in Lewisham, equally disturbing footage spread of mainly black youths congregating in the streets and vibrantly driving cars into one another.

Following the above outrages, Thinus Keeve, Retail Director of Marks & Spencer, one of the stores looted during the Clapham riots, had this to say about Khan’s taqiyya boast that fears of crime in the capital were merely being generated by online liar-bots:

I keep hearing crime is falling, especially in London – something none of us believe and very few people working in retail would see. In fact, we see the absolute opposite in our high streets and in our stores, where our colleagues are on the receiving end of abuse and violence in their workplace every day. It is becoming more brazen, more organized and more aggressive.

Also in early April, an 84-year-old London woman was stabbed to death on her own front doorstep, and a 14-year-old boy shot dead. Mayor Khan really could not have chosen a worse week to make his “the London crimewave is all fake news” speech if he had tried, like an airline CEO vaingloriously boasting about American aviation safety on the evening of 10 September, 2001.

Mugged By Reality

Of course, London is a city of over 9 million people. Thus, despite 1,000 murder victims across a decade, unless they are visiting for specific international drug-dealing purposes, foreign tourists are still overwhelmingly unlikely to return home in a coffin. Yet their chances of flying back without their phone or wallet are much higher.

Under Khan, London authorities have chosen to focus upon reducing murder rates as much as they can, whilst ignoring most other forms of crime as being beneath their attention, leading to scenes like those in Clapham, where marauders correctly think they can get away with anything short of mass slaughter. Since Khan’s first election in 2016, annual muggings have skyrocketed 140%, from 35,570 to 85,465, sexual offenses by 55% from 17,491 to 27,074, and violence against the person by 27%, from 191,691 to 242,777. And these are just the reported crimes; many Londoners don’t even bother reporting offenses to the police, knowing they won’t do anything.

Khan may suggest the rise in crime is because, over this same timespan, London’s population has correspondingly risen from 8.7 to 9.1 million, with more inhabitants logically meaning more potential criminals—but, as most of this growth comes from immigration from Africa and MuslimWorld, that doesn’t really back up his whole “Diversity has improved our city tenfold!” argument, does it? I’d also point out that one key ignored factor in the decline in murder rates over recent years is simply that the capital’s overworked trauma-surgeons have now got so incredibly good at treating knife-wounds—because they now have so much daily practice in dealing with the things, because so many blacks and Muslims now live there.

The Great Liar of London

In today’s London, a phone is stolen every six minutes, but Sadiq Khan has a far more efficient suggestion for how to prevent citizens from seeing embarrassing online stabbing videos than robbing them of their screen-devices: a regime of state censorship of “disinfo” to run parallel to that of Keir Starmer’s proposed state censorship of criticism of Islam.

The theme of this year’s Cambridge Disinformation Summit was that of “downstream harm,” which Khan has taken to mean people reading fake news online is merely an inevitable precursor to them committing acts of outright terrorism offline. Khan has had his City Hall staff sit around all day on social media, working out that, since 2024, posts depicting London as a dangerous city have increased by 150-200%, whilst posts showing it as full of alien immigrants and their desert steeds have flourished by 350%, narratives which Khan alleges are pushed solely by “extremists,” largely of a predictably “far-Right” nature—i.e., domestic neo-Nazis and foreign friends of Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump.

This is dangerous, Khan told the Disinformation Summit, as “online anger” could easily be “twisted” into “offline violence” by nefarious actors. He gave the example of a white pensioner exposed to web-based “conspiracy theories,” who later went on to use a home-made bomb to blow up a traffic-camera in one of Khan’s widely hated “pay as you drive” Ultra-Low Emission Zones (ULEZ) in the capital. So that no other old white men may strap Semtex to any lampposts because the online traffic-Nazis told them to, Khan has ordered UK ambassadors abroad to rebut all sensationalist anti-London, anti-foreigner, Internet rumors, and now demands the government must step in and create a new online censorship body:

If [social media] platforms fail to act, the state must have the tools to make them … We need a new central body with the agility and authority to protect our democracy from disinformation, and deal with the scale and speed of this crisis. And we need more aggressive enforcement of the rules we already have. Because unless regulators … have the power to hit companies where it hurts, they’ll keep on getting away with it.

Heaven forfend anyone should be able to “keep on getting away with” things in London right now. Other than non-whites going on the rampage, looting stores, shoplifting, and mugging people.

Curiously, Khan’s personal idea of “online disinformation” appears to coincide greatly with the much wider concept of “whites and non-liberals complaining about anything that makes me look bad or goes against my policies”: ULEZ, weak policing, lax national borders, Islam, the religion of diversity, etc. Practicing taqiyya yet again, Khan claims he is not aiming to shut down public criticism, merely trying to protect innocent Londoners’ lives; anyone who “cynically seeks to delay, deflect or deny” the truth of his words or the necessity of his desired governmental censorship regime is, he says, making citizens feel unsafe on their own streets.

Which, of course, would be an absolute disgrace. Don’t these online disinformation merchants realize that’s his job?