If you enjoy intellectual adventures, you’ll love the Hilbert hotel. It’s a thought-experiment in mathematics created by the great German mathematician David Hilbert (1862-1943). Hilbert asked us to imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms numbered 1, 2, 3… On the day the hotel opens, an infinite number of tourists roll up in a luxurious infini-bus. Can they all be accommodated in the Hilbert hotel? Of course: with an infinite number of rooms, it can accommodate an infinite number of guests.

From math to Maya

After the tourists have entered, the hotel is now completely full – every room is occupied. But next day another infini-bus rolls up at the Hilbert hotel with another infinite load of tourists on board. How can the new arrivals all be accommodated in the completely full hotel? Very easily. Each current guest in the hotel simply moves to a new room whose number is twice that of their old room. The guest in room 1 moves to room 2; the guest in room 2 moves to room 4; the guest in room 3 moves to room 6; and so on. Now an infinite number of odd-numbered rooms are unoccupied – 1, 3, 5, 7… – and the infinite number of new arrivals can all find a room. Indeed, the Hilbert hotel can go on accepting a daily intake of infinitely many new arrivals for ever, always full and always able to find room for infinitely more guests. And that’s just the start of its mind-boggling properties.

Speaking of boggling the mind brings me to the Indian female leftist Maya Goodfellow, a writer and academic whose “doctoral thesis explored race and processes of racialisation in British international development discourse about India between 1997-2017.” First, please enjoy the leftist perfection of her name. It inadvertently refers to both the tenuous grasp leftists have on objective reality and the tenacious belief leftists have in their own virtue. In Vedic Sanskrit maya means “illusion, unreality, deception, fraud, trick.” Goodfellow speaks for itself. Now, I doubt that Maya Goodfellow has ever heard of the Hilbert hotel. If so, that’s ironic, because she obviously thinks that Britain is a Hilbert hotel, able to accept any number of non-White enrichers for any number of years. In August 2024 Goodfellow wrote an article for the Guardian with the mind-boggling title of “We keep hearing about ‘legitimate concerns’ over immigration. The truth is, there are none.” That’s right: there are no legitimate concerns over immigration. None. Suicide-bombings? Slaughtered schoolgirls? Rape-gangs? Gang-rapes? Nope, none of those are legitimate concerns. Acid attacks? Threatening mobs driving teachers into hiding? Welfare dependency and fraud? The horrendous suffering and expense caused by the genetic diseases that flourish after marriage between close relatives? Nope, none of those are legitimate concerns either.

“Politics is about persuasion, you racist scum”

Indeed, Goodfellow doesn’t mention any of them for the simple reason that they don’t matter. How could they matter when non-Whites are responsible for them and we know that non-Whites are paragons of political and social virtue? Here’s an extract from her article:

The political “centre” usually reacts to the far right by denouncing its methods and distancing themselves from its coarse, racist rhetoric – but ultimately conceding to its underlying argument. In the days after the general election, Tony Blair advised Keir Starmer that to ward off the far right, he should celebrate what is good about immigration but be sure to “control” it. No matter how respectable and sensible such advice may seem to some within our political classes, the sentiment that “controlling” immigration is a way to appease socially conservative voters is one cause of the corrosiveness. …

Are concerns about immigration “legitimate”? Demonstrably, no. People who arrive in the UK aren’t to blame for an economy designed to benefit the richest while exploiting and abandoning the poorest – immigration is not a significant causal factor of low wages and it’s not why people have insecure jobs. Anti-immigrant feeling isn’t a natural, inevitable reaction to change either. One study found areas with low levels of immigration had some of the highest proportion of leave voters in them – a vote that was at least partly motivated by anti-immigrant concerns. No: it is mainstream politicians and certain sections of the media that summon these feelings. They characterise certain groups of people, usually those who aren’t white (or not-quite-white), as a cultural threat – often targeting Muslims, no matter where they were born.

The “legitimate concerns” in this case are illegitimate. Admitting this doesn’t mean dismissing what people are saying. Equally, engaging people with these views need not lead to legitimisation. The choice is not ignore or accept. Politics is about persuading people of another way; to think this can’t be done is patronising as well as dangerous. The government could change the narrative by making the history of empire and migration a statutory party of the curriculum, and by actively countering racism in the press, among opposition parties and within its own ranks. But it could also use this moment to change people’s material circumstances by getting rid of “hostile environment” policies and providing safe routes of travel (one of the only viable solutions to stop people from having to cross the Channel). It could also make visas cheaper, provide better housing, simplify labyrinthine Home Office processes and end temporary, exploitative visas, giving people the ability to come here on decent terms and stay if they want to. (“We keep hearing about ‘legitimate concerns’ over immigration. The truth is, there are none.,” The Guardian, 13th August 2024)

There are no legitimate concerns over immigration

Note the sneer-quotes that Goodfellow puts around “control.” Seeking to control immigration is both impossible and immoral. Britain is a Hilbert hotel: it can accept infinitely many enrichers for infinitely many years to come. And note how Goodfellow says the government should “counter racism” when she really means “silence all dissent.” Note how she says “persuading people” when she really means “ordering whites to shut up and obey.” But addressing the article on the level of fact and logic is a futile exercise. Goodfellow is a leftist addressing her fellow leftists. As I’ve often noted before, leftists are not interested in reality and logic. They believe in feelism, not realism. And while they preach equality, they practise hierarchy.

Inferiors must obey superiors

Maya Goodfellow is right at the top of that hierarchy. She’s a non-White woman, a superior being before whom lowly Whites must grovel in the dust. Blacks, Indians and other non-Whites are at the top of the racial hierarchy of leftism and Whites are at the bottom. That’s why all White concerns about non-White enrichment are “illegitimate.” The inferior can neither object to the behavior of the superior nor maintain borders against entry by the superior. The territory of White nations must be open to non-White migrants just as the territory of White history and culture must be open to non-White appropriators.

Border Abolition Now! Maya Goodfellow joins two more Indian Overlords to attack the White West

But the reverse doesn’t apply, of course. That’s why White colonialism, when inferior Whites entered the territory of superior non-Whites, is one of the greatest crimes in history. It’s also why non-White roles like Othello are now closed to inferior Whites even as all White roles, from Isaac Newton and Anne Boleyn to Achilles and Doctor Who, are open to superior non-Whites. And it’s why leftism forbids real women to object to the invasion of female spaces by transwomen (where trans- is a Latin prefix meaning “fake”). Male perverts who claim to be women are higher in the leftist hierarchy than real women. It’s feelism trumping realism again. But only for the groups favored by leftism. The feelings of “transwomen” trump the reality of biological sex, because male perverts are higher in the leftist hierarchy than real women. But the feelings of Rachel Dolezal and other wannabe Blacks don’t trump the reality of biological race, because White wannabes are lower in the leftist hierarchy than real Blacks.

Not that race has any biological reality for leftists. In which case, why can’t Whites become Black if they want to, just as, for leftists, men can become women if they want to? Leftists don’t have an answer for that simple question, because the answer would involve admitting the existence of the leftist hierarchy. But only hate-filled bigots would ask a question like that anyway. People with pure hearts and spotless souls do not question the wisdom and goodness of leftism.

Infinite enrichment for all eternity

And they especially don’t question the wisdom and goodness of non-White leftists like Maya Goodfellow. Her article in the Guardian is an excellent example of that central leftist principle: “Preach equality, practise hierarchy.” The article is written in the name of racial equality even as it issues orders from an Indian at the top of the racial hierarchy to Whites at the bottom. Non-Whites must have “safe routes” to enter Britain and must be allowed to stay “if they want to.” The wants and wishes of Whites do not matter. Their concerns about immigration are entirely and absolutely illegitimate. Whites are there to pay taxes and supply whatever their racial superiors need. That’s what the racial overlord Maya Goodfellow says and who but a racist could disagree?

Infinite guests for the wicked West

And who but a racist would question the wisdom of her proposals for unlimited non-White immigration into the indefinite future? The highly intelligent mathematician David Hilbert was a stale pale male who thought that an infinitely accommodating Hilbert hotel could exist only in the realm of fantasy. Maya Goodfellow isn’t highly intelligent like Hilbert, but she isn’t stale and pale like him either. She has access to wisdom and virtue beyond all constraints of white-supremacist fact and logic. Britain can become a Hilbert hotel for infinite immigration if non-Whites like Goodfellow so desire. America can become a Hilbert hotel too. And France, Germany, Italy, Austria, Australia, New Zealand. All White nations can and must become Hilbert hotels, accepting unlimited numbers of enrichers into the indefinite future. After all, only the “illegitimate” concerns of Whites stand in the way.