I’m lucky to be free of all of the usual phobias that affect coddled westerners. I have no irrational fear at the sight of a spider on a wall, a dark room, or a large dog. Central to the concept of a phobia is that one’s physical and emotional response to the object is irrational. A spider on a wall several feet away should provoke caution, not paralytic fear or histrionics. But no-one would argue that a large spider on one’s arm is nothing to be afraid of, or that allowing it to climb onto one’s hand would demonstrate courage or level-headedness, rather than pathological lack of survival instinct.

Much like the taunt of the schoolyard bully, ‘What’s the matter, are you scared?’, Islamophobia is a linguistic construction designed to disarm rational objections to the devastating social consequences wrought by the presence of Muslims. No debate or discussion can ensue from this allegation, since the question at hand is moved from the costs and benefits of allowing Muslims to questioning the mental health and emotional maturity of the now untouchable Islamophobe.

Yet many well-meaning conservatives will bend over backwards to deny the low-status associations with ‘Islamophobia’, not being well-versed themselves in the tactics of psychological manipulation and gaslighting that comes so naturally to the liberal. One of the uglier forms of self-cockoldry displayed by conservatives is the mistaken claim that they have more in common with a devout Mohammedian than their atheistic consumerist countrymen.

The line of thinking goes something like this: a conservative White Christian will claim that a deracinated white person is inferior to the practicing Muslim. Contrasting the adherents of Abrahamic religions, with their ostensible delay of gratification, with the hedonistic and impulsive White progressive is a way of appealing to the anti-white left, since they elevate ‘lifestyle choice’ and ideology over ethnic loyalty in a similar manner to that of homosexuals or feminists. As long as white ethnic consciousness is undermined, these sentiments will be allowed, or perhaps even encouraged.

In this way, the ‘anti-modern’ Islamophilic white Christian not only fails in the duty of his own faith, to promote Christendom against heresy such as Islam, he himself falls prey to the most perverse aspect of liberalism – subscription identity. The idea that the upstanding Christian man, who cares for his faith, culture and family is equivalent in spirit to foreign worshippers of a foreign deity, and that the valuation of a person or a culture lives and dies by the behaviour of a single generation would make our existence a perilously fragile proposition.

Moreover It is a profoundly un-Christian sentiment that non-believers of one’s own stock may be supplanted with the fervent followers of another God. There is no righteousness that can come from this. Christianity has been all but destroyed in North Africa and the Middle East by these ‘devout believers’ of Islam. Why is it that it will be any different in France or England? The strength of the secular liberal state rests upon the relative lack of tribal voting blocs with wildly competing interests. As explored in Houellebeq’s dystopic novel Submission, once an Islamic party gains enough of a minority in Parliament to become a key voting bloc, the integrity of the system can become severely, since their constituents comprise already armed insurgents who only recognise the authority of their own representatives.

The ‘upright Muslim’ trope goes much further than this. Many educated whites may have had exposure to the smattering of educated Muslims who are largely secular and Westernised, even if they display token adherence to rituals and profess their faith publicly. The insidious and duplicitous nature of this phenomenon is not sufficiently appreciated, and forms a key platform in the practice of taqquiya.

These educated Muslims know all too well that the hordes of their own people are of low quality and are incapable of constructing or maintaining the façade of a civil society except under harsh autocratic rule. They do not subject themselves to the crude dogma of the Quran and Hadith, nor do they pay attention to the ravings of Imams or other ‘scholars’ of Islam. They themselves have abandoned their own societies, even though they sat at the top of them, in exchange for middle class life in Western societies that is not plagued by criminality, corruption, rampant sexual assault, slavery, savagery and barbarism.

Yet publicly, these ‘good’ Muslims will never denounce or disavow their own people, and in fact will promote their collective interests, encouraging their mass migration into Western countries, invoking ‘racism’ and Islamaphobia when the wisdom of this is questioned.

Australia’s very own professional Muslim, Waleed Aly is perhaps the best example of taqquiya in action. As the host of The Project, a left-liberal comedy-news show based around mocking and ridiculing blue-collar Whites (‘bogans’), conservative politicians and faking moral outrage at Australia’s immigration policy. He has been appointed as a policy adviser on terrorism by government authorities and fatuously claimed that the ‘best way to defeat ISIS’ is by embracing more Muslims.

His insufferable sense of self-importance and self-righteousness aside, ‘tip-top taquiyya’ Wally serves as a foil in Australian society for the protests of poorer whites who are preyed upon and disposessed by Muslims. Bourgeois progressives in Eastern Sydney, Inner Melbourne and Canberra who suffer none of the consequences of these policies smugly self-congratulate their own ‘open mindedness’ and ‘lack of ignorance’ since they all know Wally is following the ‘true Islam’.

Aly’s wife, Suzanne Carland is a White Australian woman who converted to Islam and after flirting with various exotic eastern religions during her university days. As the second most well-known public face of Islam in Australia, Carland does more to deceive the public about Islam and Muslims than the most ‘moderate’ Imam could possibly dream of. She has partnered with a fashion label to promote Islamic fashion and poses for lifestyle magazine photo-shoots where she casually talks about the struggles of being Muslim and her noble task of educating Australians about what Islam is really about.

Carland scores double points for both being a Muslim female and for having a disabled child. As a core aspect of Islamic culture is cousin marriage, creating offspring with congenital diseases is part and parcel of the lived experience of being a Muslim. In our victims-are-the-heroes culture, Carlyle is the embodiment of what it means to embrace Islam. She dines with the prime minister, enjoys celebrity status, subverts our cultural norms and destroys our ethnic stock whilst being congratulated on her righteous struggle by gaggles of other bourgeois women, who could only drool at the sight of such success.

This elaborate process of what allows the left to dupe the public into tacitly accepting their hold on the moral good of forcing Muslims into our society, whilst writing off waves of terrorism, crime and social decay as matters of municipal administration, policing, or their favourite, racism.

The anatomy of the Islamic war machine is a topic far too incendiary for polite bourgeois types to discuss. As Guillaume Faye explores in Convergence of Catastrophes, the primary weapon used in a Muslim colonisation is demographics. By outbreeding non-Muslims by extraordinary rates (as high as 6-8 children per woman, compared to 1.4-1.8 for Europeans), the extrapolated demographic result creates not only a powerful voting bloc, but the capacity for territorial expansion, government infiltration and eventually soldiers.

There are already concerns about the French Military, which has recruited heavily from North African populations. The loyalties of these soldiers is yet to be tested in a scenario where the interests of their own kind is put against those of France. The Algerian War provides a relatively recent example of the wholesale betrayal of both enlisted men and officers, who trained and fought for years with the French before turning their own guns on them as soon as they thought they could get away with it.

The fact that there are five times more Muslim ‘Australians’ fighting for ISIS than enlisted in our own defence force should be enough evidence for the need to reverse this disastrous experiment, yet again it is the spectre of ‘extremism’ and ‘radicalisation of youth’ that is summoned to explain why young Muslims fight for their own cause. The absurdity of this situation has reached comic proportions. As a country we used to intern foreign nationals of our enemies during times of war. Now, our government stamps their passports to allow them to board planes and fight our own people in the Middle East, and are virtually powerless to prosecute them upon their return, even when they have conclusive intelligence that they engaged as ISIS soldiers.

It should be obvious that soldiers fight for more than their usually meagre salary. Without the emotional connection to the people they serve, the mercenary is far less likely to sacrifice his own life in battle. What makes this situation even worse than an ordinary mercenary misalignment of interests is that these mercenaries do have a strong loyalty to a competing ethnic group which is of military significance domestically and abroad. What’s more, there is a hot war both in Europe and the Middle East occurring as we speak against ISIS, which represents a broad swathe of Islamists around the world.

One of the most common objections given to concerns about the Islamic menace is that the terrorists are ‘lone wolves’, ‘extremists’, motivated by ‘hate’ and do not represent the supposedly ‘peaceful’ people of their stock and ideology. I’ve even heard someone express concern and sympathy for those Muslims who are not yet exploded, since they are ‘unfairly blamed’ by the ill-educated who don’t understand that not all Muslims have blown themselves up to date.

It is worth pointing out that it is never the ‘majority’ of any population that engages in warfare. When discussing the impact of any ethnic group on the wider society, no productive conclusions could be drawn without an analysis of the demonstrated social impact of that group. The ‘not all Muslims’ refrain serves not as an argument, but rather another ‘discussion ending’ point that one is forced to acknowledge, almost as idiotic as London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s astonishing chutzpah to claim that the terrorism perpetuated by his co-ethnics in the British capital is now an unavoidable aspect of living in a ‘big city’.

The need for the refutation of multiculturalism and rejection of Muslims from our societies has never been greater. We don’t need them, we never have, and we never will. Refusing to be shamed into accepting that this has been good for us, that this is ‘irreversible’, that we owe anything to these people will the first step in salvaging the present state of confusion, taqquiya and lies.