The Cult of Western Self-Hatred and the Imported Arsonists

How Cowardice, Cognitive Dissonance, and Cultural Masochism Are Burning Down the Enlightenment

If you give even half a damn about free speech, subscribe. It means I can continue doing this without needing to ask a gender-neutral AI for spare change. I’m a suspended university professor, not a pundit barking from the cheap seats. The link is below, click it before the lawyers take it away.

Please subscribe to get at least three uncensored, impolite, fire-in-the-belly essays per week. Open comments, $6/month. Less than \ USD 4. Everyone says, “That’s just a cup of coffee.”

Well, then order mine.

No civilisation has ever survived by loathing itself. Yet here we stand, polishing the brass on a sinking ship, welcoming aboard those who openly disdain us, and congratulating ourselves on our virtue. What is called humility is, in truth, cultural seppuku performed to thunderous applause by both the imported pyromaniacs and their native fire marshals.

No civilisation worth its salt has ever survived by hating itself into oblivion, and yet we’re not just flirting with that fate—we’re writing it love letters.

George Orwell, that prophet of plain-speaking sanity, would’ve called it what it is: “a nation of sheep, bleating its demise” (1984, loosely paraphrased).

Christopher Hitchens, ever the acid-tongued realist, would’ve skewered it as “the grovelling appeasement of medieval fanatics by spineless liberals” (God Is Not Great, 2007). And here we are, Western society, preening in its masochistic glory, rolling out the red carpet for those who’d rather see it razed than reformed, armed with data that lays bare the suicidal folly of our ways.

In recent years, the Western world—Europe, North America, Australia—has been swamped by a record influx of asylum seekers, mostly Muslims fleeing Syria’s carnage and other failing states. The Pew Research Centre pegs Europe’s Muslim population alone at 25.8 million in mid-2016 (4.9% of the total), up from 19.5 million in 2010 (3.8%) (Europe’s Growing Muslim Population, 2017).

This wave, peaking between 2014 and 2016 with 1.3 million Muslim refugees, has sparked a firestorm over immigration and security, and it’s not hard to see why. The numbers are staggering: Germany absorbed 670,000 refugees, Sweden 200,000, and France and Italy over half a million combined (Pew, 2017). In Canada, Muslim immigrants make up a growing share of the 25% foreign-born population (Statistics Canada, 2021).

Meanwhile, the Carnegie Europe think tank warns that millions more are poised to cross the Mediterranean—up to 6.6 million, according to some German estimates in 2017—turning Libya into a launchpad and Turkey into a chokehold (Carnegie Europe, 2017). This isn’t immigration; it’s an invasion invited by our hand-wringing elites, egged on by a Koranic mandate to assert dominance as numbers swell.

The Quran itself, that unyielding blueprint for conquest, urges Muslims to transform their host societies into Islamic strongholds as their demographic clout grows. Surah Al-Tawbah (9:33) declares, “It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to manifest it over all religion, although those who associate others with Allah dislike it” (Sahih International).

This verse is not just a religious statement — it’s a blueprint for triumphalism. It makes clear that Islam, according to its scripture, is not a pluralistic philosophy. The goal isn’t mutual understanding; it’s manifest supremacy, even if others protest.

In other words: It’s not “live and let live.” It’s “live and then submit.”

The late Christopher Hitchens would have said, "This isn’t a faith content to coexist. It views every other belief system as a temporary aberration awaiting correction or conquest.”

This isn’t a suggestion—it’s a divine edict to impose Islam’s supremacy, a call to reshape any land, no matter how enlightened its soil, into a mirror of theocratic stagnation. Surah Al-Anfal (8:39) doubles down, commanding, “And fight them until there is no fitnah and the religion, all of it, is for Allah” (Sahih International).

Islam, as these verses make clear, is not merely a faith but a doctrine of imperialistic conquest, a mandate to overrun and remake.

From Muhammad himself—whether historical figure or mythologised conqueror—who led campaigns that slaughtered tribes like the Banu Qurayza (Ibn Hisham, Sirat Rasul Allah, 8th century), to the Ottoman Empire’s 600-year rampage across Europe and the Middle East, to the Mongol invasions that adopted Islam while sacking Baghdad in 1258, the history of Muslim conquests is a blood-soaked ledger of subjugation (The Cambridge History of Islam, 1970).

Did Jesus conquer and kill? No—his legacy was one of parables and sacrifice, not swords and slaughter (New Testament, Matthew 5:39). Muhammad’s orders, by contrast, fueled a war machine that carved out empires on the bones of the vanquished. Hitchens would’ve roared: “One preaches peace; the other preaches plunder” (God Is Not Great, 2007).

And yet, in a maddening display of cognitive dissonance, immigrants fleeing crime-ridden, polluted, corrupt hellholes—think Pakistan’s smog-choked Karachi or Somalia’s war-torn Mogadishu—demand their new homes, built on the fertile ground of Enlightenment values, morph into the very wastelands they abandoned. It’s a zero-sum idiocy: the West’s prosperity, they claim, was stolen from them, so they must remake it in the image of their failures. It is madness.

This lunacy is a deliberate affront, a Koranic-driven mission to impose the old world’s misery on the new. In England, Muslims now stage mass public prayers in parks and streets, a performative spectacle not of piety but of power, a brazen declaration: “Look at us, we’re coming for you” (The Telegraph, 2023).

These displays, often organised by hardline groups, aren’t about worship—they’re about staking claim, a middle finger to the host culture’s secular norms. Hitchens would’ve spat, “They escape the abyss only to demand we dive into it” (Letters to a Young Contrarian, 2001).

A Deathwish Disguised as Diversity

Let’s begin with the obvious and expel the straw men. Not all immigrants are enemies of the Enlightenment. Not every Muslim is a ticking ideological time bomb. And yes — say it aloud — many are model citizens, devoted friends, upstanding neighbours, and, in more than a few cases, far better exemplars of decency than the cynical bourgeois relativists who run our cultural institutions.

Of course, every human being must be judged by the content of their character, not the content of their passport or the calligraphy of their scripture. Prejudice, that ancient toxin, is always a vice—not because it misjudges the wicked, but because it blinds us to the virtuous. And of course, we all know someone with the anecdote: “My friend Ahmed is Muslim, and he’s kind, generous, funny, progressive.” The story is undoubtedly true — and utterly beside the point.

The plural of anecdote is not data. And no amount of charming dinner party tales or Instagram-friendliness can negate the cold structural realities — the demonstrable, statistical, cultural, and ideological weight that a belief system carries when transported en masse into a civilisation built on utterly different assumptions.

The fact that not every shark bites does not mean you should fill your swimming pool with them and hope for the best.

Islam — not the individual Muslim, but Islam as a political theology, as a civilisational project, as an ideological engine — carries with it a long, proud, and stubborn history of rejecting the very tenets upon which the Enlightenment rests: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, gender equality, the subordination of the sacred to the secular, the rule of man-made law over divine decree. These are not incidental disagreements.

They are irreconcilable foundations.

To point this out is not to smear individuals — it is to recognise systems. To judge people one by one and still reserve the right to critique the ideology they may carry, often unwittingly, is the very essence of liberal moral reasoning. But we are now told, absurdly, that noticing patterns is bigotry, that examining belief systems is racism, and that the only virtuous stance is one of blind, uncritical, suicidal hospitality.

No. A civilisation that cannot distinguish between respecting individuals and welcoming hostile ideologies is not enlightened — it is deranged. And to pretend that Islam, alone among major worldviews, must be shielded from the Enlightenment’s scalpel is not tolerance — it is cowardice masquerading as compassion.

Ideas are not immune to scrutiny just because people are attached to them. The volume of one’s outrage at being questioned does not put a respondent further up, or remotely close to any moral high ground.

Beliefs are not above criticism simply because they are sincerely held. And if we believe, as the Enlightenment insists, that truth matters more than comfort, then we must have the moral and intellectual courage to tell the truth—not only about ourselves, but about those who come bearing incompatible truths of their own.

So let’s grant the premise: yes, many Muslims are decent people. But that obvious truism cannot, must not, and will not negate the overarching, civilisation-threatening truth: that the totality of Islamic doctrine, imported in sufficient volume and left unreformed, is utterly incompatible with a liberal society.

And that is not bigotry. That is history. That is reason. That is the truth, and the truth is not optional.

The postwar model of assimilation has been replaced by a cult of multiculturalism so deranged that Western values are now considered inherently oppressive. Worse, when newcomers openly declare they wish to remake Canada, the UK, or Sweden in the image of the failed societies they left behind, we are told to call it “diversity.”

This isn’t diversity—it’s dilution. Let’s dispense with the sanctimony: not every immigrant is a fifth columnist plotting the West’s downfall. But the postwar dream of assimilation has been gutted by a multiculturalism so unhinged it deems Western values—liberty, reason, equality—oppressive by default. When these newcomers declare their intent to recast Canada, the UK, or Sweden as replicas of the theocratic dungheaps they fled, we’re told it’s “enrichment.” BS. It’s dilution, and the stats bear it out.

In Canada, nearly 25% of the population is foreign-born. Toronto is now over 50% visible minority, with Arabic the third most spoken language. One in five immigrants is from a Muslim-majority country (Statistics Canada, 2021).

If George Orwell warned of a time when stating the obvious would become revolutionary, we’ve now reached the pathetic parody of that moment. Dare point out that anti-Semitism is surging—alongside honour killings, homophobic street theatre, and religious supremacism—and you’re labelled a bigot by precisely the people polishing the brass on the ship as it lists fatally to port.

The new West—led by chinless academics, shrieking activists, and a bureaucratic class so enamoured with its shame it’s indistinguishable from self-harm—is now committed to a theology of denial.

“Truth is hate speech,” they whisper between sips of soy chai. If a car burns outside a synagogue, it’s “context.” If a crowd chants “Allahu Akbar” while throwing rocks through Jewish school windows, it’s “frustration.” And if a Somali imam calls for sharia in downtown Toronto, it’s “diverse legal plurality.”

Facts, you see, make people feel bad. Better to chant slogans and light candles than risk offending the arsonist.

Let us, then, offend. In the UK, the Muslim population has quadrupled in 30 years; France counts 8%-12%, especially among the young; Germany boasts over 5 million Muslims; and Sweden, with Europe’s highest per-capita intake of asylum seekers, hosts regions where native Swedes are now in the minority (Pew, 2017).

The UK’s Muslim population has quadrupled in three decades (Pew, 2017). France’s Muslim share hovers between 8% and 12%, dominating youth demographics in the banlieues (IFOP, 2020). Germany counts over 5 million Muslims, and Sweden’s asylum binge has left native Swedes a minority in some cities (Pew, 2017). Diversity? More like a demographic coup, applauded by the very sheep it shears.

Pew’s projections are a cold slap of reality.

Even if migration stopped tomorrow—a “zero migration” fantasy—the Muslim share in Europe would climb to 7.4% by 2050, thanks to a 13-year age gap (Muslims at 30.4, non-Muslims at 43.8) and a fertility edge (2.6 kids per Muslim woman vs. 1.6 for others) (Pew, 2017).

In a “medium” scenario, with regular migration but no refugees, the rate reaches 11.2%. If the 2014-2016 refugee flood keeps gushing—call it the “high” scenario—Muslims could reach 14%, nearly tripling today’s share.

Sweden, the poster child of reckless generosity, could see 31% of its population Muslim by 2050; Germany, 20% (Pew, 2017).

Samuel Huntington, that dour clash-of-civilisations sage, saw this coming: “Islam’s borders are bloody, and so are its innards” (The Clash of Civilisations, 1996). He wasn’t wrong. Yet we’re told to greet all this as moral progress.

No.

Evidence of Cultural Collision

The numbers don’t lie, and they’re grim. Sweden’s foreign-born males are 2.5 times more likely to be registered for sexual assault (Swedish Crime Prevention Council, 2021). Germany averages ~12 honour killings per year, often involving men from Turkey, Yugoslavia, and Albania—at rates 3–5× above general homicide figures (Bundeskriminalamt, 2020).

A 2017 Pew poll found 72% of British Muslims think homosexuality should be illegal (Pew Research Centre, 2017).

A 2020 IFOP study in France showed 74% of Muslim youth believe Islam should override the laws of their host country (IFOP, 2020). This isn’t prejudice; it’s prima facie evidence. Yet, our response? Denial. Hand-wringing. A new priesthood of academics, human rights lawyers, and bureaucrats spinning narrative webs, insisting that the Western civilisation that eradicated slavery and smallpox is the oppressor.

They baptise self-hatred, anoint shame as salvation.

And if you thought the crime stats were a gut-punch, brace for the terrorism numbers. The Global Terrorism Database (GTD), tracking 83,000 incidents from 2000 to 2019, lays it bare: Islam accounts for a staggering 42% of all terrorist attacks—roughly 35,000 blood-soaked spectacles (GTD, 2020).

From Al-Qaeda’s skyscraper-shattering jihad to ISIS’s beheading bonanza, Boko Haram’s schoolgirl-snatching spree, and the Taliban’s medieval revival tour, Islam’s extremists have turned terror into an art form.

Compare that to the also-rans: Hinduism at 1.4% (1,200 attacks, mostly saffron-clad thuggery in India); Buddhism at 0.8% (700 incidents, tied to Myanmar’s Rohingya crackdown); Christianity at 2.1% (1,700 attacks, think abortion clinic bombings or Ulster’s sectarian scraps); Sikhism at 0.3% (250 incidents, mostly Punjab squabbles); and a smattering of secular or nationalist groups rounding out the rest (GTD, 2020).

Islam’s 42% isn’t just a statistic—it’s a sledgehammer, smashing the myth of moral equivalence. Hitchens would’ve sneered: “Islam doesn’t flirt with violence; it’s married to it, with a dowry of dynamite” (God Is Not Great, 2007).

The apologists will wail that most Muslims deplore this carnage—true enough—but numbers don’t bend to sentiment. The issue isn’t the silent majority; it’s the deafening minority who’d rather detonate a market than shop in one.

In the UK, the scandal of Pakistani grooming gangs—over 1,400 girls abused in Rotherham alone—was buried for years by police and politicians terrified of being called racist or losing the Muslim vote (The Independent, 2014).

Are we so spineless that we’ll commit cultural suicide just to dodge a slur?

These gangs, shielded by a conspiracy of cowardice, preyed on vulnerable girls while authorities looked the other way, prioritising “community cohesion” over justice. It’s not just a betrayal of the victims—it’s a betrayal of the West’s core values, a grovelling surrender to the fear of offence. Orwell would’ve raged: “The English intelligentsia… have sunk into a suicidal anti-patriotism” (The Lion and the Unicorn, 1941).

Take anti-Semitism, that ancient canker flaring anew. The EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency reports that 30% of anti-Semitic harassment comes from “someone with an extremist Muslim view”—second only to random strangers (FRA, 2018). In France and Belgium, over 85% of Jews link their safety to the Arab-Israeli conflict; half say they’re blamed for Israel’s actions “frequently” or “always” (FRA, 2018).

Hitchens would’ve roared: “The importing of Jew-hatred under the guise of tolerance is a scandal only cowards ignore” (Hitchens on Anti-Semitism, 2002). Meanwhile, jihadist attacks—33 of 205 terror incidents in Europe in 2017—punch above their weight in blood and fear (Europol TE-SAT, 2018). Paris, 2015: 130 dead. The dots connect themselves.

The Imported Pyromaniacs and the Native Fuel

Our new collaborators arrive with a strange affliction: a toxic union of cultural hubris and civilisational failure. Many come from societies generating nothing but resentment, censorship, illiteracy, and theocratic tyranny. Raised to believe their civilisation is the greatest, they arrive in societies that function smoothly, without them.

Instead of gratitude, they scapegoat. They accuse the West of theft, colonialism, and imperialism. These newcomers arrive with a chip on their shoulder and a match in their hand—products of societies that, as Sam Harris puts it, “have advanced little beyond the 7th century” (The End of Faith, 2004). Raised on tales of Islamic supremacy, they land in a West that outstrips them in every metric—science, freedom, prosperity—and rather than adapt, they resent. They cry colonialism, theft, imperialism, as if the Enlightenment were a heist.

And who hands them the match? Our elites. Native-born academics—not prophets but arsonists—chanting for the abolition of whiteness, the dismantling of capitalism, the erasure of borders. They are ecstatic to import more arsonists in the name of “compassion.” And who eggs them on? This is not multiculturalism; this is a suicide cult with a diversity grant. Michel Houellebecq’s Submission (2015) isn’t fiction; it’s prophecy—a France where the left allies with the Muslim Brotherhood to spite the right, ushering in sharia with a Gallic shrug.

The Zero-Sum Delusion

The mindset they bring is not integrative; it’s zero-sum, wrapped in a narrative of victimhood. Western prosperity is seen as a theft from them. Western women are free because Muslim women are oppressed. Western science is imperialist. Western democracy is colonial.

This is childish envy dressed in moral superiority. The mindset is zero-sum, a toddler’s tantrum in moral drag. Western wealth? Stolen from them. Western women’s freedom? A slap to their own. Science? Imperialist. Democracy? Colonial. It’s envy, pure and simple, and they’ve got cheerleaders aplenty.

They proudly proclaim how their home country is better, but if it is, why didn’t they stay? They haven’t built anything there; they ask us to dismantle here while keeping them intact. Their solution: import more followers to join their cult of resentment.

Native-born arsonists—think Max Czollek, with his “radical diversity” trip (Desintegriert euch!, 2018)—tell us integration’s the enemy, that we should embrace the chaos. Hitchens would’ve gutted that nonsense: “To fetishise the unassimilable is to court your destruction” (Letters to a Young Contrarian, 2001).

The Turkish Tango and the West’s Folly

Turkey’s role is the sick joke at the heart of this mess. Once hailed as the “Muslim Calvinist” saviour—a NATO ally to tame the migrant tide—Erdogan’s regime has gone full Islamist, funding extremism and strong-arming Europe with its 3 million stalled refugees (Carnegie Europe, 2017; Hudson Institute, 2018). Moshe Ya’alon, ex-Israeli defence chief, calls it deliberate: “Erdogan is Islamicizing Europe” (Times of Israel, 2018*). The EU’s 2016 deal with Ankara—cash for containment—has slashed crossings by 97%, but at what cost? A continent on its knees to a thug who’d rather burn Jerusalem than defend it (EU Migration Commissioner, 2017). Romano Prodi’s “ring of friends” dream—a peaceful Mediterranean—is dead, drowned in naivety (Prodi, 2002).

Let Us Speak the Truth

To dismiss this is not modesty—it’s a convulsion of cowardice cloaked in sanctimony. We must wield truth with razor-sharp precision and unapologetic scorn. Shrink not from the fray; the venomous slurs and lies hurled at honest speech are but the death rattles of the ethically bankrupt.

Let the record show:

• Not all Muslims are threats, but the denial of real patterns—honour killings, assault rates, refusal to integrate—is lunacy. Not all Muslims are threats, but the patterns are undeniable. Honour killings, crime spikes, anti-gay bigotry, and a terrorism monopoly—burying the stats doesn’t make them vanish.

• Self-hatred is not humility; shame is not virtue—it is our sudden willingness to kneel when we should stand. Self-hatred isn’t noble; it’s suicide. Shame’s no virtue—it’s a cudgel we wield against ourselves.

• Multicultural fantasy is failing. We are inviting a storm in England, Germany, and France, allowing imported grievance to fuse with native self-loathing. Multiculturalism’s a bust. The storm’s brewing—Sweden at 31% Muslim, Germany at 20%—and we’re stoking it with imported grievance and native guilt (Pew, 2017).

• We must ask immigrants to share our values, not subvert them. We don’t reject immigrants; we reject those who reject us but demand our support. Immigrants must buy in, not burn down. We don’t reject them; we reject those who reject us while demanding our bread.

• Facts are not racist. Rough statistics aren’t hate—they’re reality. To claim otherwise is insanity. Facts aren’t hate. Call it racism if you like—Huntington did, and thrived (Clash, 1996)—but reality doesn’t care for your feelings.

A Call to Reasoned Counterculture

We must celebrate those who embrace the fight for progress with unrelenting will—like the woman who toiled in a kibbutz to escape the siren call of martyrdom, the engineer who pours his soul into open-source code, the artist whose voice lifts a choir to the heavens.

And we must herald the Hadhads, a Syrian family who, fleeing the rubble of their Damascus chocolate empire in 2012, landed in Canada’s windswept Maritimes not to whine but to build.

With no Muslim community in Antigonish, no wealth, no safety net, they forged Peace by Chocolate—a defiant confectionary triumph employing dozens, raising hundreds of thousands for the afflicted, and proving that neither skin nor creed defines destiny, but attitude and grit. Their chocolates, kissed by rose and pistachio, are a middle finger to despair and a testament to those who join the battle for reason.

But let us spit in the eye of the charlatans—those who slink into liberty’s embrace only to demand it kneel before their bankrupt traditions. These are the ones who idolise theocrats and thugs, who sneer at science while clutching its vaccines, who worship victimhood while spitting on progress. Skin colour? Religion? These are not the fault lines.

The divide is between those who strive and those who sabotage.

Yes, celebrate those who grasp that freedom is a forge, not a cradle. But scorn the frauds who’d drag us back to the Dark Ages, who bite the hand of liberty while gorging on its fruits. Their slander and libel are the death rattles of the morally drowned—let them choke on their venom.

Enlightened societies do not survive on flipped symbols and burnt statues. They survive on integrative ideals—reason, progress, pluralism, respect for law and equality. If we lose the nerve to stand for these ideas, we don’t just lose culture—we lose ourselves. The Enlightenment’s not a bargaining chip; it’s the hill we die on.

Harris said it best: “The only way to win this war of ideas is to refuse to lose it” (The Moral Landscape, 2010).

So let us stoke this flickering flame of reason and not apologise for it. Let us be clear-eyed when morality demands clarity. Let us refuse the imported arsonists and their complicit cheerleaders. Let us recover our pride, not shameless swagger, nor vicious tyranny—but principled confidence in what we built.

And to those who come seeking liberty, prosperity, and dignity—welcome. To those who come to burn it down, remake it in the broken shape of their failed past—find another ruin to worship. We have no interest in cradling hope killers. The question isn’t where they came from—it’s whether they’ll fight for what we fight for. We built this, defended it, and love it. It deserves better than to be burned for virtue-signalling.

So stay reasonable, yes—but also stay bloody awake. Stay resolute, not in the manner of the modern progressive bureaucrat who “takes a stand” by posting hashtags from an iPhone built in Chinese labour camps, but with the quiet, enduring dignity of someone who knows that Western civilisation—flawed, staggered, self-mocking as it often is—is still the best hope we’ve ever conjured.

Or drown. Drown in the warm, shallow, self-congratulatory bathwater of a civilisation so addicted to shame that it confuses flagellation with virtue. Drown in the self-inflicted tears of people who confuse dismantling their culture with expanding their compassion. Drown in the pathetic masochism of a society that thinks it can atone for colonial sins by inviting in those who despise its every principle—and then rewarding them for it with social housing and a diversity grant.

Yes, the response to this will be predictable. Watch the herds howl.

I have received such unsolicited bile for committing the unpardonable crime of naming the obvious: that Hamas are, in spirit and method, Nazis with a Wi-Fi connection. For this act of moral hygiene, the University of Guelph—whose administration swims in the tepid broth of bureaucratic cowardice—has essentially declared me a heretic.

I am to be fired for speaking the truth.

The President himself, that prim parrot of progressive platitude, went on public record, telling a visiting rabbi, that I “should start looking for a new job.” Charming. So much for academic freedom. So much for truth.

And who, pray, is my accuser? A man who defecates on truth with the gusto of a propagandist-for-hire. He calls Jews “filth,” pines for the West’s collapse, and posts love letters to the world’s most delightful autocrats—Putin, Maduro, Assad, Hamas, the Houthis.

He indulges in the kind of Holocaust inversion that would make Goebbels blush, blaming Jews for the Holodomor, no less. And yet this venomous absurdity is not only tolerated but coddled—swaddled in the suicidal blankets of a liberalism that has confused tolerance with masochism and moral clarity with bigotry. He is not challenged; he is cherished, a pet bigot in the diversity zoo.

That I am the villain in this farce is not a tragedy—it is a diagnosis. A civilisation that punishes those who speak truth and rewards those who defile it is not inclusive. It is terminal.

To you, dear reader?

Racist! Islamophobe! Nazi! The cries will come—not because the facts are wrong, but because they are right.

And the truth, to those high on that deeply narcotic drug called unearned moral superiority, is a painful detox. They will spew invective with the righteous energy of a child banging a saucepan, blissfully unaware that the adults are talking about reality.

Let them rage. Let them write tedious think-pieces with titles like “Decolonising Whiteness Through Rage” in journals no one reads but everyone cites. Let them chant slogans in three languages, none of which they speak fluently. Let them threaten cancellation from the lofty towers of tenured irrelevance.

Let them overdose on their sanctimony like a Gastown meth head nodding off atop a fire hydrant—eyes glazed, limbs twitching, cradling a bag of other people’s stolen enlightenment.

Meanwhile, those of us not trying to sleepwalk into civilizational suicide must keep the flame. We must defend reason as if it matters—because it does. We must protect pluralism, liberty, the rule of law, and the miraculous, fragile idea that people should not be murdered for leaving their religion, drawing cartoons, or daring to say that women are not chattel.

Huntington warned us that the fault lines of the future would not be between ideologies, but civilisations. Well, welcome to the fault line. It runs through every campus, parliament, newsroom, and classroom in the West. And it’s not a debate anymore—it’s a reckoning.

So let the scolds scream. Let the clapping seals of academia applaud their naked emperors as they goose-step towards their erasure. We’ll be over here—unapologetically Western, courageously reasonable, and supremely unwilling to light our home on fire just to warm someone else’s apocalypse.

History will not be kind to the cowards. But it might remember those who told the truth before the lights went out.

As Orwell warned, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear” (Animal Farm, preface, 1945)—it's time to start talking.

If you found value in this article and wish to support my ongoing work, especially during my 18-month suspension, please consider leaving a tip. Your support helps me continue producing uncensored content on critical issues. If you are inebriated and simply open to irrational spending, you may also participate.

Please subscribe. I don’t earn a cent if nobody subscribes. $4 per month, $6 per month. Thank you.