The Guardian has been performing a key liberal ritual: gazing adoringly into a mirror. Narcissism is central to liberalism and nothing is more gratifying to liberals than a chance to display their Conspicuous Compassion and Concern for Oppressed Minorities:

Today, on the UN’s first day of Zero Tolerance on FGM [Female Genital Mutilation], the Guardian is launching a national and international campaign to end FGM. We are not the first to try. There are ministers in government – Jane Ellison at the Department of Health and Lynne Featherstone at International Development – who have prioritised action. The efforts of others – in London, Glasgow, Manchester, Cardiff and Birmingham – are slowly bringing greater recognition of the problem. But too many young girls – perhaps 20,000, the daughters of mothers who have themselves been cut – remain at risk. After discussions with campaigners and among communities where it is practised, it became clear that an education programme delivered through every school in the country could provide the breakthrough in cultural attitudes that could make a real difference. We want everyone to be aware that FGM is illegal. We want potential victims – and parents who are perhaps under pressure from family elders – to know there are people and organisations ready to offer support. (Female genital mutilation: end it, Editorial in The Guardian, 5th February 2014)

Can you see that, O World? The Guardian is absolutely and utterly opposed to Female Genital Mutilation. It thinks cutting pieces off girls’ genitals without anaesthetic is a very bad thing. And it is utterly unapologetic about saying so before a world-wide audience. Liberals will undoubtedly think: “How noble.” As an anti-liberal, I think: “How narcissistic.” I also think: “How nauseating.” The details of FGM are revolting. So are the deceit and dishonesty of the Guardian. Look at the smarmy evasion here:

FGM, or cutting, is a violation that is inflicted only on girls, usually as very young children. It is not a religious ritual. It predates Christianity and Islam, although in some places both religions have incorporated it as a rite of passage. What it is, universally, is a weapon of control by men over women’s sexuality in which older women collude in order to observe social norms of marriageability and honour.

FGM may indeed predate Islam, but even Wikipedia notes that it “is found only within or near Muslim communities.” Note that Christianity, where FGM is not a serious problem, is named before Islam, where it is definitely a serious problem. Note the generic “men” who wield it as a “weapon of control” over “women’s sexuality.” What kind of men are they? If they support FGM, doesn’t that make them misogynist barbarians? If so, won’t they be very bad for female rights in Britain? Those are not questions the Guardian feels able to address.

Indeed, FGM is a mysterious business altogether. It’s a “problem” in France too, you may be unsurprised to hear, and liberals there are similarly reluctant to explain its origins:

The French former justice minister Rachida Dati summed up France’s attitude, saying: “This mutilation has no foundation in any religion, philosophy, culture or sociology. It is a serious and violent abuse of a female. It cannot be justified in any way. FGM is a crime.” (France’s tough stance on female genital mutilation is working, say campaigners, The Guardian, 10th February 2014)

If FGM has “no foundation” in any aspect of human culture, where on earth does it come from? Has it beamed in from a distant galaxy? Has it seeped into susceptible brains from contaminated groundwater? Is it something to do with radioactivity or antibiotic resistance?

No, not quite. Despite the lies of Rachida Dati and the Guardian, the truth is obvious: FGM has a very firm foundation in the religion and culture of “28 countries in Africa and … a few countries in Asia and the Middle East” (see here). But FGM wasn’t a “problem” in any Western nation in 1914. A hundred years later, in 2014, it is a problem right across the West, from Western Europe to North America and Australasia. In other words, FGM has spread and got worse. The West has acquired a pathology that was once unknown here.

And whom can we thank for that? Simple: it’s the liberals who imposed mass immigration against the wishes of ordinary Whites and imported Third World barbarism and misogyny. Now that FGM is firmly established in the West, what is the belated liberal response? Loud calls for ordinary Whites to fund a therapeutic police state with their taxes. Inter alia, liberals are demanding “specialist support services, including remedial medical and psychological support.” Expense should be no concern, according to the wealthy “human rights lawyers” Dexter Dias and Felicity Gerry and the “sociologist” Hilary Burrage. They’re experts on the problem of FGM, you see, and though they’re not anxious to reveal how much they’re donating themselves to their noble cause, they’re working hard to explain why FGM is so hard to stop. Here’s one of the causes:

Despite clear guidelines, many frontline professionals (GPs [General Practitioners of Medicine], midwives, teachers, healthcare visitors, social workers) are not trained, do not understand the law and harbour beliefs that FGM is someone else’s problem. They are uncertain about the significance of “cultural” or “traditional” values and concerned about accusations of racism. … FGM is a perfect storm of taboo subjects: gender violence, sexual liberty and race. (10 reasons why our FGM law has failed – and 10 ways to improve it, The Guardian, 7th February 2014)

Ah, so professionals are scared of “accusations of racism,” are they? But who has created the totalitarian, heresy-sniffing environment in which race is a “taboo subject”? Simple: first, liberals and second, oppressed non-Whites whom liberals have trained to shriek “Racism!” whenever they want to gain personal advantage:

Sacks: Multiculturalism threatens democracy

… Jonathan Sacks, Britain’s [former] chief rabbi … said Britain’s politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment. The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays. He said the effect had been “inexorably divisive.” “A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others,” he said. (Britain’s top rabbi warns against multiculturalism, iSteve, 20th October 2007)

FGM is one of the many gifts showered on the West by liberalism, which has both imported FGM into the West and made it harder to prevent now that it’s here. Those compassionate and concerned “human rights lawyers” mentioned above also say that victims “face huge social pressure to keep silent in communities where FGM is perpetuated as a potent symbol of social solidarity.”

In other words, the bigger the community, the more easily it can torture (and sometimes kill) its female children. And why are “communities” from Africa and other parts of the Third World so big in the West? Simple: it’s a combination of mass immigration and lavish subsidies for reproduction. For example, Somalis are enthusiastic practitioners of FGM and Somalis in the West are overwhelmingly tax-consumers, not tax-creators. Some of the money they drain from White nations goes to support their very high birthrate here and some goes back home to Somalia to support their very high birthrate there:

Here’s [a Somali]: Mr. Saeed Khaliif. I should actually have said “here’s ten,” as Mr. Khaliif has a wife and eight children. (Though eight is only our best estimate: no-one seems to know the exact number.)

The Khaliifs arrived in Britain three years ago as refugees from Somalia. In their three years of residence, neither has had paid employment, nor have they learned to speak English. What they have mainly spent their time doing has been studying how to game Britain’s welfare system. Most recently they have moved into a seven-bedroom house in tony West Hampstead — Emma Thompson lives nearby. The house is worth $3.2m. Monthly rent — paid for by British taxpayers — is $13,000. Here is another Somali [dead link], Mrs. Hailmo Bokh of Memphis, Tennessee. “Somalian Woman and 11 Kids Call Memphis Home,” reads the headline. To America’s shame, Mrs. Bokh and her kids have not been given a seven-bedroom house in an upscale neighborhood, only a three-bedroom apartment in a middling neighborhood. Like the Khaliifs, though, the Bokhs will be fed, clothed, and educated courtesy of native taxpayers. “The Catholic Charities of West Tennessee … will help them get on their feet in Memphis,” says the news story, but that’s disingenuous since (a) CCWT gets at least half its revenues from government grants (see Part VIII here), and (b) as soon as they can — a few months at most — CCWT hands off refugees to the general welfare system. (Somalis All Over, John Derbyshire, TakiMag, 19th August, 2011)

So liberalism is funding more Somali girls to be born and undergo the FGM over which liberals then wring their hands and demand expensive and intrusive “Action!” Liberalism is also funding more Somali boys to be born and follow the vibrant traditions of their homeland: murder, rape, theft, fraud, terrorism and so on. These traditions explain why richly vibrant Somalia is regularly listed among the Most Corrupt and Least Liveable Nations on Earth by monitoring organizations like Transparency International (see here). The stale pale nations of Sweden and New Zealand, by contrast, are among the Least Corrupt and Most Liveable Nations on Earth. If New Zealand had a sane immigration policy, it would accept immigrants only from countries like Sweden, and vice versa. But New Zealand is run by liberals, so it doesn’t have a sane immigration policy:

Somalis and terrorism go together like Hindus and spelling bees. The chap who tried to blow up the city Christmas-tree-lighting ceremony in Portland, Oregon last year is, yes, a Somali refugee, one of over 100,000 the U.S.A. has taken in since the early 1990s. As TakiMag’s resident New Zealand watcher, it would be remiss of me not to check in with the Kiwis on this. How are their Somalis doing? New Zealand has settled about 4,000 Somalis, and they have already made their mark — with, for example, New Zealand’s first ever plane hijacking. (Somalis All Over)

Sweden is also run by liberals, so it doesn’t have a sane immigration policy either:

In 1781, 1,159 Swedish farmers from Dagö in today’s Estonia were displaced to Ukraine. Several years ago a few descendants of these — still Swedes — applied to take up residence in Sweden. But they were rejected immediately. A few years ago a Swedish family from Gammalsvenskby, Ukraine, applied for a permit in old age to be allowed to settle in Sweden. The family was descended from the Estonian-Swedish population in the village, which still speaks Swedish as their mother tongue. However, the Migration Board rejected their application, writes the journalist Kjell Albin Abrahamson in [the newspaper] Länstidningen Östersund. He recently visited Ukraine and the Swedish village, where grinding poverty still prevails. “Maybe the Swedish villagers should have instead been illiterates from Somalia,” says Kjell Albin Abrahamson, which for someone in the leftish Swedish press is a very unusual reflection. (Somalis? Yes! Swedes? No!, Gates of Vienna, 28th October 2012)

So lunatic liberals in Sweden reject educated Swedes from Ukraine and welcome illiterate Blacks from Somalia, who bring with them FGM and many other pathologies. But is lunacy the only word for that kind of behaviour? I think perhaps an older and simpler word applies too: Evil. Liberals have deliberately imported corrupt, violent, child-mutilating Third World barbarians into peaceful, prosperous First World nations. They have done so against the wishes of the White majority. They have demonized opposition as racist and “Islamophobic.” And now that Third World horrors like FGM are firmly established in the West, thanks entirely to their policies and their ideology, they demand hugely expensive and intrusive “solutions.” And throughout all this, they have had one constant concern: posturing, preaching and feeding their own insatiable narcissism. If liberalism is not lunatic and evil, it manages a very good imitation of both.

Appendix: Conspicuous Compassion and Concern for Oppressed Minorities

Some links at the Guardian website about a problem created by the Guardian and its readers: