by Lindsay Perigo

I noted at the beginning of the beginning of the liberation of Iran two weeks ago that we would quickly discover that Soros and Singham's rent-a-mob trash in Western countries who had hitherto been brandishing Palestinian flags and portraits of the Ayatollah Khamenei would immediately be brandishing Iranian flags and portraits of the Ayatollah, newly martyred and presumably savouring the delights of his 72 virgins.

It's not clear whether the new Supreme Leader, son of the old one, has himself been martyred already, but the facts may be moot: Junior had reportedly been receiving treatment in WESTERN clinics for erectile dysfunction, so getting it up 72 times in a row would probably prove an insurMOUNTable challenge. Then there are reports that he really plays for the other team, if you get my drift, so his medical issues may simply relate to lack of interest.

Whatever, the fact that the current pro-HAM-ASS mob comprises the self-same rent-a-mobsters as the old one is not moot. And it was not lost on one TV anchor who didn't want to believe it: Leland Vittert, who used to work for Fox but left because it was too Unwoke.

So while non-Iranians in the West, Sorosian stooges, protest against the overthrow of the most evil regime on the planet, actual Iranians have been dancing in the streets, thanking America and … Orange Man Bad-Ass! And doing the OMBA dance!

Though he's not showing it, OMBA may be feeling a little lonely. Who should have been rock-solid allies in the liberation of Persia – the Spanish, the French, the Aussies and the Brits – have proved to be squishy weasel-worders, too worried about the Muslim vote. Case in point: Keir Staliner. As OMBA ruefully noted: “We're not dealing with Winston Churchill here.” No, not Winston Churchill, but a snivelling, craven, treasonous Quisling.

On that matter, journalist Samara Gill appeared on Sky Australia's Bolt Report with Andrew Bolt after being roughed up covering a protest by Sorosian thugs in Staliner's and Saddiq Khan's Londonistan.

Staliner had been hoping to secure the Muslim vote by banning criticism of Islam. He had been pinning his hopes on a parliamentary working group on anti-Muslim hatred set up in February last year, which was going to come up with a definitive definition of Islamophobia and what to do about it. In the event, in its final report the group didn't actually use the term Islamophobia but spoke instead of “anti-Muslim hostility,” which it defined as

• intentionally engaging in, assisting, or encouraging criminal acts — including violence, vandalism, harassment or intimidation — directed at Muslims or people perceived to be Muslim because of their religion.

Well hang on a minute. Intentionally engaging in, assisting, or encouraging criminal acts, including violence, vandalism, harassment or intimidation, should never be legal against ANYONE. That's a given in a civilised society, and there are already laws against these things. Why is it necessary to nominate Muslims in particular, or ANYONE in particular, for legal protection against these things?! Unless there is an ultimate intent to afford Muslims SPECIAL protection?!

This report, it should be noted, is not law; it is guidance, non-statutory, not legally binding. And it actually goes on to specify freedoms that should NOT be proscribed in the enforcement of the guideliness:

• criticism of Islam or other religions
• ridicule or insults directed at religious beliefs
• criticism of the practices of believers
• raising public-interest concerns about religious practices

All of that, the working party says, SHOULD be allowed. To which I say, I should bloody well hope so! Those freedoms are, or should be,  a given. But then the Working Party muddies the waters a bit. It says what it calls “prejudicial stereotyping of Muslims” can count as “anti-Muslim hostility.” Here is where the alarm bells ring about SPECIAL protection. What examples does it give of “prejudicial stereotyping of Muslims”?

“Statements that portray Muslims collectively as Inherently violent or extremist.” Hmmm. Where does that leave a statement like, “Not all Muslims are terrorists. Nearly all terrorists nowadays are Muslims.” In the last 2 weeks there've been terror attacks in Virginia, Michigan and New York. All by Muslims. Bondi Beach, Sydney, December 14, 2025. Muslims. Attacks on synagogues in Australia in collusion with Iran, whose ambassador was then expelled, as ours should be. Muslims. Where is one left for pointing this out? In one of Staliner's jails, like so many already for online posts? Headless, even, hacked to death by a Jihadi?

Saying “Muslims are naturally inclined toward terrorism.” Where does that leave a statement like, “Scratch a moderate Muslim and you'll find a Jihadi,” perhaps pointing to all the supposedly “moderate” Muslims who leered up in the streets on October 8, 2023?

Another Working Group example of anti-Muslim hostility: “Claiming Muslims are inherently supportive of ISIS or jihadism.” Actually, this use of the word “inherently” is deceitful. No one is claiming anyone is genetically wired to support terrorism, but there are hundreds of millions world-wide brainwashed into doing so. Will pointing that out land one in jail or beheaded?

Saying “Muslims cannot be loyal to Britain because their religion comes first.” Where does that leave a response like, “Well, doesn't their religion come first?!”

Claiming “Muslims are a fifth column seeking to impose Sharia law.” Where does that leave a response like, “Well, aren't many of them?!” What about the pockets of Sharia polluting almost every country in Europistan?!

Claims that “Muslims are secretly plotting demographic takeover” (“Eurabia”-type conspiracy theories). Where does that leave a response like, “Who said anything about secretly?!” Here's Samara Gill again, reporting from White Chapel, an area of Londonistan that is not remotely, recognisably English.

Poor little English white lady, walking round among a sea of covered-up faces from which nary a word of English emerges. Let's hear some more of Andrew Bolt's interview with Samara the other night.

Now, here's the kicker about this new 2026 definition of anti-Muslim hostility. It follows another one in 2019, that was not acted upon because it too blatantly said the quiet part out loud.

The 2019 “Islamophobia” definition promoted by the then-All‑Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims.

“Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”

Oh dear. Aside from the fact that that is a description rather than a definition, it covers the waterfront, doesn't it? No wiggle-room there. One's head – my head – would have been lopped off a couple of minutes ago if that were in force. And I think we're entitled, indeed duty-bound to assume, in the name of eternal vigilance which is liberty's price, that this remains the agenda, in Staliner's Britonistan.

All of this is against a backdrop of an assault on free speech from every which Woke which-way all over the globe. In New Zealand we have a bunch of wannabe totalitarians proposing banning of under-16s from the Internet. Pathetic! Now, actually, I might be tempted to acquiesce to a ban on under-16s, period. But that's on account of what their teachers and their teachers' teachers turned them intol. Ban the teachers, I say!! Child-molesters of the mind! Disenfranchise them, exile them to Communist China or Iran if it remains a theocracy. Ironically, Britonistan's House of Commons just voted down an internet ban for under-16s!

Verily, the threats to free speech are diverse. The Marxist Media Maggotry. The Chinese Communist Party. Our Uniparty parliament. But the mullahs are right up there.

Shove your deranged, psychopathic pedophile prophet up your Akbar, barbarian!

Final word to the late and very great Christopher Hitchens.