Often, when I've finished my extremist duties for the day (refusing poison injections for fictitious diseases and so on), I like to unwind with a film. It frequently takes nearly as long as a three-part epic itself to actually find something worth watching, but one strategy I have come to employ in my stratifying endeavours is looking up the film's score on the 'Rotten Tomatoes' review site - because you know that, if the film has a score of over 90%, it's likely going to be absolutely awful.

Or rather, to put it another way, absolutely agenda-full.

Hands down the worst film I have ever seen got a score of 96% on Rotten Tomatoes, and the film in question is about a man who cleans toilets. That's literally the whole film, but because he's Japanese and doesn't speak much, it's profound.

The man is poor, single, and lives alone in a matchbox-size bedsit, but didn't you get that he's Japanese, doesn't speak much, and cleans toilets? So it's totally aspirational and inspiring, yeah? The Guardian, of course, absolutely loved it.

Needless to say, being poor, single, and living alone, without meaningful or well-remunerated employment, is exactly the aspirational future the overlords have in mind for the masses, so that's why the film scored so highly on the establishment review sites (Rotten Tomatoes, for example, is owned by media giants Warner Brothers and Versant).

Hence, when I discovered the film 'The Big Sick' had an even higher Rotten Tomatoes rating - an extraordinary 98% - I knew it would be transmitting some very powerful propaganda indeed.

It did.

The Big Sick tells the (apparently true) story of stand-up comic, Pakistani Muslim Kumail, and white liberal American, Emily, as they strike up a relationship.

Kumail's devoutly religious family, who migrated to the USA from Pakistan several years before, expect him to follow familial and cultural traditions by having an arranged marriage with a woman from a similar background. Hence, when they find out about Emily, they are devastated.

Kumail's parents express to him their dismay, reminding him of all the sacrifices they have made to give him the best start in life, and how supportive they are of him in any ambition he should choose to pursue - but the one thing they ask of him is that he continues their 1,400 year old cultural traditions by marrying a woman from a similar background.

Kumail refuses, and so they disown him.

Kumail goes on to marry Emily, and rejects his religious background entirely. He now describes himself as an atheist, and the couple (who married in 2007) have no children.

Of course, this story is presented to the audience as the triumph of true love over archaic religious dogma, with Kumail's "backwards, oppressive" parents portrayed as the villains of the piece - yet the reality is that Kumail's behaviour underlines that their concerns were absolutely right.

The reason his parents wanted him to marry a woman from a similar background is not because they are evil tyrants who don't want him to be happy (the film shows how much effort they put into introducing him to a variety of pleasant, attractive women he might be compatible with), but because they desire the continuance of their culture - their traditions, language, religion, family - all the things that make a people unique, and that give human life meaning beyond "work and pay bills".

His parents knew that, were Kumail to marry a woman not from a similar background, the couple would be highly unlikely to continue any of these things, and hence, the culture would die out.

This is typically what happens when two people from very different cultural backgrounds marry one another - the cultural traditions are not passed on to the next generation (if a next generation is produced at all). That is precisely why people from cohesive cultural backgrounds are generally so against their children marrying outside of it.

And what makes it dramatically less likely a person will marry someone from the same cultural background?

Moving them to a completely different one.

If Kumail and his family had remained resident in Pakistan, the chances of him marrying a white liberal atheist are fairly close to nil.

If he moves to a white liberal atheist culture, surrounded by white liberal atheists, the chances become drastically higher. Not only that he will marry a liberal atheist, but that he will become one himself. As he did.

So, this film - which, to repeat, received a 98% score on propaganda-approver site Rotten Tomatoes - is telling us exactly what happens to Muslims, and what is engineered to happen to them, when they mass-migrate to the West.

Not that they all accrue four Muslim wives and sire twelve Muslim children each, but rather, that they become Westernised, reject their religion, and become just another cookie-cutter liberal progressive, with few or no children.

This illustrates the fatal flaw in the ideology of those who claim that "Muslims" are going to make up a large percentage of the population in the future, based on current birth rates of those from a Muslim background.

Namely, that you cannot project a 'Muslim' percentage of the future population in the same way you can project a 'white' or 'Asian' population, because Islam is a religion, not a race, and therefore people can leave it. And Western Muslims do, in their hordes - it's estimated that around 25% of those raised Muslim in the United States no longer identify as Muslim.

Although we may be able to accurately predict that, in the future, people of South Asian extraction will make up a bigger percentage of Western populations than they do today, we cannot in good faith claim this is synonymous with a large 'Muslim' population, because extrapolating from current trends (and current propaganda), this is what happens to Muslims when they come to / are born in the West:

They (funnily enough) get Westernised.

They become less religious. They focus more on personal fulfilment in terms of education and career, than they do on faith and family. They have (dramatically) fewer children than they do in their own cultures - contrary to current click-baity fearmongering, the current European Muslim birthrate is actually 2.6 (and falling).

In short, they become 'Kumails'.

The only proven way of foreign groups reliably preserving their traditions and customs - and birthrates - is to entirely segregate themselves from the host culture. They must have their own schools, their own places of work, and completely insulate themselves - especially their children - from Western influences.

Muslims who come to the West overwhelmingly do not do this. Their children are sent to the same schools as the native populace, they watch the same TV shows, and they work alongside the natives in every environment from shops to hospitals.

They consequently become more Westernised with every year that goes by, and less religious, until - eventually and inevitably - they become a largely secular people, just as has happened to the vast majority of ancestral Christians in this country.

Modern Western lifestyles and influences corrode religious observation and unique cultural identity, just as they are designed to do.

So, no, there will be no 'Muslim takeover' in the West simply because the so-called 'Muslim' population gets to a certain level.

By 2100, the "Muslim" population is projected to be around 20%, but if we are actually honest, rather than polemical, and extrapolate from real, observable data and trends, it is far more likely that this population will simply be secular atheist South Asian, not fanatical religious Islamists starting caliphates.

As I've mentioned before, there is only one religious group in the UK which has created the apposite conditions to maintain their culture and customs - including a very high birthrate - immunised from corrosive Western influences, and it isn't Muslims.

That group, therefore, may have all sorts of reasons for getting you to point fingers and scream about the make-believe "Muslim" takeover - whilst ignoring the very real religious takeover that is, quietly and in the background, gathering ever more pace.

This is not to say I'm pro mass-migration of Muslims, whether they remain Muslims or not - it is totally unnecessary and undesirable, both for the host cultures and the indigenous ones. Mass migration, and "diversity" in general, dilutes and destroys cultures, and so I am against it. In fact, I am so against it, that I endorse the Amish, one of the most static and uniform cultures in the world.

However, I am very much pro the truth, and exposing what the real agenda is of those who squeal the most vocally and visibly about "the Muslim takeover". Raise your hands, Tommy Robinson - or 'Tel Aviv Steve', as he has been splendidly rechristened - Laura Dodsworth, Allison Pearson, Toby Young, et al.

What do all these people have in common? Whose cultural interests are they really representing and protecting? How many of them, for example, just so happen to be past or present directors of the British Friends of Israel? (Three out of the four aforementioned names.)

We're being played.

There is no imminent 'Muslim takeover'. Rather, the social controllers want to degrade us all into one big amorphous blob of liberal atheist 'global citizens' with no clearly defined identity in terms of religion, culture, or tradition. They do this by painting religion and tradition as backwards, evil, and oppressive, via plentiful propaganda such as The Big Sick (and, needless to say, there is an encyclopaedic array of programming demonising Christianity)...

Except for Judaism, of course, which is sacrosanct and beyond any kind of critique, because critiquing the Jews leads to the holocaust, you know.

So, for those countries that don't actually have laws preventing people from having an opinion on this event - like the UK - the overlords have to stage psyops pretending you can get into legal trouble for opining on it. If people fall for this, then we have de facto "Holocaust denial" laws, without the establishment actually having to go to all the hassle of passing the requisite legislation.

Meanwhile, you can deny Christian or Muslim genocides all you want, and nobody is going to even pretend anything happens to you.

So, to sum, and as ever: "to find out who rules over you, learn who you're not allowed to criticise" (as well as which films get the highest ratings on Rotten Tomatoes...).

Thanks for reading! This site is entirely reader-powered, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, making it truly independent. Your support is therefore crucial to ensuring this site's continued existence. If you'd like to make a contribution to help this site keep going, please consider...

1. Subscribing monthly via Patreon or Substack (where paid subscribers can comment on posts)

2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee

3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Nat West account number 30835984, sort code 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA (please use your email address as a reference if you'd like me to acknowledge receipt).

Your support is what allows this site to continue to exist and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.