How Anti-Fascists Helped Muslim Grooming Gangs in the UK


EDL members list a series of crimes against the working class committed by the South Yorkshire police

On August 26, 2014, professor Alexis Jay released the report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham, UK i. It describes how hundreds of girls aged eleven and above were groomed, raped, and prostituted by organized gangs of Muslim men in the town of Rotherham from 1997 thru 2013. It explains that one of the main reasons the authorities allowed these crimes to continue was fear of being accused of racism. This is the tip of the iceberg. It’s been going on all over the country for many years.

This exposes a major omission in my 2008 critique, The Mass Psychology of Anti-Fascism ii, which is principally concerned with the connection between anti-fascism in the United States and Zionism.

I was unaware of the role of anti-fascists in the UK in persuading the media to suppress information about these Muslim child-rape gangs, and convincing the authorities to pursue, not the gangs, but their opponents.

However, I did comment on Richard Seymour’s blog “Lenin’s Tomb” three years ago reporting politician Jack Straw’s initial warnings about Muslims preying on non-Muslim minors iii. As a result, I was banned from the site. I also wrote an article early last year iv rejecting the term “Islamophobia” as part of political correctness, in other words, an attempt to suppress freedom of speech.

My comment on “Lenin’s Tomb” has been deleted. Fortunately, the “Red Scribblings” blog has preserved the essence of my argument in a comment censoring me because I said Muslims in Bradford allegedly see white girls as “fair game”. The author of the blog thought this constitutes “serious grounds to suspect” I’m a fascist, and refused to publish any more of my comments v, which he said contain “allegations that feature in a campaign for the demonisation of Muslims in this country by the anti-Muslim far right.”

In the wake of the Alexis Jay report, it is clear that, on this particular issue, the reds were wrong, and the right was right.

Richard Seymour sat on the fence, saying the grooming panic “seemed” to be a “racialised moral panic” – a wise move, as it turned out:

Seymour is not an idiot. At the other extreme, here is an article from Socialist Worker, defending Muslim extremists trying to murder innocent people for their opinions:

This is the Guardian‘s report on the same incident:

I was somewhat resistant to Islamophilia, which means giving special rights to Muslims, but nowhere near resistant enough. This is my attempt to catch up with the brave individuals who were the first to stand up against the Muslim child-rapists and their left-liberal establishment enablers.

There is some debate about how Muslim the rapists really are. Whether the holy books of Islam justify raping “kaffirs” (non-Muslims) or not. I don’t know, but their behavior is endorsed, or at least tolerated, by a significant section of their local Muslim community. It must be, or so many of them wouldn’t have been able to organize on such a scale for so long.

The earliest known information about Muslim gangs specifically targeting non-Muslim girls is the reaction of some Sikhs to a rape in Birmingham in 1988. (See this interview with Andrew Norfolk by the Sikh Awareness Society on Youtube). From that date, until Norfolk’s article in the Times in 2010, there was mostly silence from the media.

Following the suppression of Channel Four’s 2003 documentary vi, and the mainstream media’s rejection of Julie Bindel’s 2010 article vii, Norfolk viii began studying the specific crime of organized, localized, grooming of underage children for sex. He found that almost all those convicted had Muslim names:

“In January 2011, Andrew Norfolk wrote an article for the Times newspaper which is claimed to have formed a watershed. He went back through all the court cases for convictions of groups of men who groomed schoolgirls for sex. Between 1997 and 2010, he found 56 men who fit this criterion. Only 5 out of the 56 men convicted were not Muslims. Muslims are less than 5% of the population, but in Norfolk’s retrospective survey, they were 91% of those convicted. An extraordinary statistical inversion such as this demands further investigation.”

(Peter McLoughlin, Easy Meat, page 99)


The specific kind of abuse that involves gangs luring, gang raping, threatening, enslaving and trading under-age girls is almost exclusively a Muslim phenomenon in Britain. It’s not celebrity Britons, or Australians, plying under-age girls with drink and drugs, dousing them with gasoline, and threatening to burn down their houses, and rape their mothers and sisters. It’s these aggravating aspects that justify identifying Islamic child-rapists as a distinct category.

The liberal left works overtime to deny this. Last year, the Guardian attempted to emotionally blackmail us into believing the “Muslim rape gang” hypothesis is a “racialised moral panic”, in a parody entitled “It’s time to face up to the problem of sexual abuse in the white communityix. The article attempts to convince the reader that, if you talk about Muslim men raping children, and you don’t give equal weight to the ethnicity and religion of white paedos, you’re a racist.

In 2003, Channel Four produced a program on Muslims preying five times a day on more than seventy-two virgins x. The organization Unite Against Fascism persuaded the station not to show it (see Peter McLoughlin, Easy Meat, page 208) — it was eventually shown, but at an inconvenient time.

Some of the Muslim child-rapists made use of American-style anti-racism. They convinced impressionable white girls that their parents were “privileged” and “racist”. Unlettered Pakistani taxi-drivers appropriated theories of racial oppression from US universities – almost all Muslims in Britain are of darker tint than the indigenous population. However, they only used this trick on white girls. To groom girls of Sikh parentage xi, they pretended to be Sikhs. Not all the Muslim paedo gang members are from Pakistan and Kashmir. Some are from Iraq, and some are from Kosovo.


Contrary to what the left tells us, its not about race at all. But according to professor Jay’s report, and Norfolk’s articles, it is, to some extent, about religion.

The only way race is relevant is that it’s partly the race of the rapists which held back the establishment, gripped by anti-racism, from investigating them.

Much of the left, on both sides of the Atlantic, suffer from white guilt. This pathology infected the authorities, becoming one of the reasons they enabled hundreds of girls to be raped by Muslims, because the girls were mostly white, and the Muslims are mostly not.


An example of American-style anti-racism crossing the Atlantic is a 2013 article in Race and Class by Ella Cockbain, “Grooming and the ‘Asian sex gang predator’: the construction of a racial crime threatxii. By putting “Asian sex gang predator” in quotation marks, and using the postmodernist word “construction”, Cockbain tells us the purpose of her piece – to persuade us that the stories of Muslim child-rapists are racist and false. She was wrong on both counts. If this were just an article in an obscure left-wing journal, it wouldn’t matter much. But arguments like this influence social workers, and even the police. Everyone worried that they might be “constructing a racial crime threat”. Until now.


Muslims who want to “smash” the EDL

Rotherham council didn’t protect children against rapists, but it removed two children from foster parents who support the right-wing United Kingdom Independence Party:

“So when it became clear to us that the couple had political affiliations to Ukip we had to seriously think about the longer term needs of the children. We have to think about their clear statement on ending multiculturalism, for example. The children were from EU migrant backgrounds and Ukip has very clear statements on ending multiculturalism, which might be sensitive to these children.” – Joyce Thacker, Rotherham’s director of children and young people’s services.

At the time of writing, Joyce Thacker is still in her post.

To summarize: how did anti-fascists help Muslim child-rapists?

  • By campaigning for laws against freedom of speech. For example, when the leader of the British National Party, Nick Griffin, spoke about Muslim child-rapists, he was charged with racial incitement.
  • By pressurizing the media to suppress information about Muslim paedophiles.
  • By trying to persuade the authorities to ban marches against the child-rapists organized by the English Defence League.
  • By slandering the EDL, calling it “racist” and “fascist”, and physically trying to prevent it marching to draw attention to the rapists.
  • By organizing within local government to promote anti-racist ideas. When a social work researcher in Rotherham reported on the child-rapists, she was told to “never, ever” mention that they were mostly Asian, and sent on a diversity training course. Thus, diversity training was used as a form of discipline against reporting the child-rapists, which helped them continue raping children.

None of the above means I “support” the EDL. In fact, I’m quite critical of it. The only way I support the EDL is to congratulate its members for standing up against the Muslim child-rape gangs, against police, anti-fascist, and paedophile opposition, in the face of physical violence, death threats, and imprisonment. And I don’t mind that the EDL’s members enjoy a beer, but I wish they’d learn how to use a dictionary.


What political conclusions can be drawn from the Rotherham revelations? Here’s a tentative list of demands which could reasonably be made of the authorities:

  • scrap all laws against free speech and racial/religious discrimination
  • end diversity training
  • withdraw government funding for anti-white hate studies courses at universities and colleges
  • fund programs to rescue women and young people from Islam
  • seriously investigate the problem of mass immigration from Muslim countries

Finally, could I be wrong? Yes I could. It’s in the nature of Western enlightenment culture that no statement is final. But it is likely that Evolution is true, and arguable that Islam is an abomination.

A list of more links on the Muslim grooming gang problem:

Cat Stevens is sixty-seven.

i Alexis Jay, the report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham

ii Jay Knott, The Mass Psychology of Fascism, October 2008 –

iii White girls seen as ‘easy meat’ by Pakistani rapists, says Jack Straw, the Guardian, 8 January 2011 –

iv Jay Knott, What is Islamophobia?, January 2013 –

vi Campaign to Stop Race Documentary, BBC News, August 17, 2004 –

vii Julie Bindel, Gangs, Girls and Grooming: the Truth, Standpoint Magazine, December 2010 –

viii Andrew Norfolk, Police Files Reveal Vast Child Protection Scandal, The Times, London, September 24, 2012 –

ix Joseph Harker, It’s time to face up to the problem of sexual abuse in the white community, the Guardian, May 6, 2013 –

xi Andrew Norfolk, Reality of Sexual Grooming Gangs in the UK, the Sikh Awareness Society, November 21, 2012 –

xii Ella Cockbain, Grooming and the ‘Asian sex gang predator’: the construction of a racial crime threat, April 2013


  1. After the Jay report came out, another self-styled “anti-fascist” organisation (part of the Searchlight organisation) tried to claim they had been campaigning on the muslim grooming gangs for years.

    “HOPE not hate was vocal in its criticism of how local authorities were dealing with on-street grooming from as far back as 2005…”

    You might be interested in these claims that the UAF’s fellow travellers “Hope Not Hate” were whipped into toeing the (SWP) party line on the grooming gangs.

    Between 2005 and 2014, HNH were silent about the muslim grooming gangs. That they apparently did try to broach this problem in 2005, but backed away from it rather than create any dissent on the Left, is more scandalous than not knowing about it until 2014!

    An interesting observation is that Peter McLoughlin poses the question of who managed to stop the warning video “My Dangerous Loverboy” from being shown to schoolgirls around the country. This quesion has been picked up by The Daily Mirror. Since the UAF’s principal backers are a number of the largest teaching unions it seems likely that these unions (or at least powerful teaching staff within them) are implicated in stopping the video from being shown.

    Also, in 2006 Peter Tatchell and gay muslims were criticising the UAF’s cosy relationship with homophobic muslim organisations.

    So, the UAF was prepared not just to abandon the cause of working-class white schoolgirls, but also gay muslims. That the UAF should finally appoint an islamic extremist to their leadership is hardy surprising: Andrew Gilligan of The Telegraph goes so far as to describe him as a fascist. I finally realised a couple of years ago, that these leftwing organisations have barely any principles, and will take up and drop causes as and when they further the Left’s grasp at power.

    Between 2010 and 2012 I observed a number of UAF demonstrations against the EDL, and it was clear the UAF’s numbers plummeted in those 2 years. With the media providing a sustained disinformation campaign against EDL, it was not hard for the UAF to recruit ignorant people (mostly students) to bus (on free coaches) to oppose the “fascist” EDL demonstrations. However, it was clear that the more time these UAF supporters spent opposing EDL, the less they opposed EDL and the more they abandoned the UAF.

    By 2013 the UAF was relying on muslims to make up large parts of their anti-EDL demos, and the UAF also stopped branding its counter-demos as “UAF” and were instead naming them things like “Walthamstow United Against Hate” (can’t remember if that was the exact front organisation name they used, but in the past 2 years it was often something along those lines).

    Another thing worth remembering, is that one of the killers of Lee Rigby was very vocal in his kuffarphobic hatred at the UAF’s counter-protest in Harrow in 2009. I was there to observe that demonstration too, and was stood close enough to the UAF to hear them saying gleefully: “we hope there will be a riot”. In my naivety, I was appalled to hear this, wondering just how a riot helped anyone (the UAF did get the sought-after riot in Harrow in 2009 – helpfully described as “a race riot” by the media, when the only people rioting were 100s of muslims attacking the police).

    The NUJ is another major backer of the UAF. So we can’t expect many journalists to actually expose the UAF to critical examination.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s