A challenge to my view of Islam


In reaction to the massacre of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists by Islamists in January 2015, I wrote “The difference between my culture and Islam is not relative. It is absolute.” Reading the new book “Islam and the Future of Tolerancei, a discussion between leading American atheist campaigner Sam Harris, and British ex-Islamic extremist Maajid Nawaz, has made me rethink a bit.

But, like Harris and Nawaz, I still reject the term “Islamophobia”, and the regressive leftists who use it to provide cover for Islamic prejudice and violence. (See my articles).

The book starts with Harris recollecting his first discussion with Nawaz, in which he said that Islam isn’t a religion of peace, and the so-called ‘extremists’ are seeking to implement what is arguably the most honest reading of the faith’s actual doctrine.

It’s difficult to argue with Sam Harris, but Nawaz rises to the challenge.

He starts with how he became an extremist. He claims there was a lot of “racism” against people like him when he was young. This caused an “identity crisis”, which led Nawaz to join a group which tried to persuade army officers in Muslim countries to stage coups. As luck would have it, he landed in Egypt to campaign for this group on September 10th, 2001. He ended up being tortured, and serving five years in jail, after which Amnesty International rescued him, and he founded Quilliam, which tries to persuade young British Muslims not to blow themselves up on trains.

At this point, it’s time to define some terms. Nawaz lists four rough categories of Muslims:

1. Jihadists, who want to impose strict Islamic law by force

2. Islamists, who want Islamic law, but won’t use force to achieve it

3. Conservative Muslims, who believe in Islamic law, but don’t want to make everyone else obey it

4. People who just happen to have been born into Muslim families, and have a “Muslim” identity

Nawaz and Harris agree that the majority of the world’s Muslims belong to group three. Though they don’t plant bombs, they do consider it may be right to cut off the hands of thieves.

Harris adds the statistic that, in the wake of the bombings in London on July 7, 2005, a poll found 68% of British Muslims believed that citizens who “insult Islam” should be arrested and prosecuted. Harris seems unaware that that is not far from existing British law against “incitement”. At least as shocking is a poll in 2009 which could not find a single British Muslim who thought it was OK to be homosexual ii.

Nawaz believes “Islamism must be defeated”. He says he’s trying to persuade all people, Muslim and infidel, to adopt secular values. He makes it clear that “secular” doesn’t mean “atheist”, it means “the strict separation of state and religion”. He wants to end the mutually-reinforcing trap whereby Western people think that Islam is a religion of war, and make war against it, and Muslim extremists use this to promote their view that the West is against Islam.

Despite Harris having once insulted Nawaz by saying he was being dishonest about the nature of Islam, Nawaz was big enough to answer politely that Islam is a religion neither of peace nor of war. He says

Religion doesn’t inherently speak for itself; no scripture, no book, no piece of writing has its own voice. I subscribe to this view whether I’m interpreting Shakespeare of interpreting religious scripture.

But Harris has no difficulty demolishing this argument. Islam can’t be interpreted to mean it’s OK to serve bacon sandwiches at a gay wedding reception. Personally, I have found Muslims have more difficulty in understanding secularism than any other religious people I’ve come across.

Before that, Harris takes another detour into exposing Islamic chutzpah. He points out that Muslim extremists complained when the West didn’t intervene to save Bosnian Muslims from Serbian militia, but when they attacked secular dictator Saddam Hussein’s regime, they said this was an attack on Muslims. I’d add that the perpetrators of September 11th forgot the aid they’d received from America in “liberating” Afghanistan from the Russians in the eighties. Harris says there were many good reasons to oppose the Iraq War – but “the West is attacking Muslims” was not one of them.

Harris and Nawaz both reject with contempt the “social justice warrior” apologists for Islamic extremism. They say the p.c. left is exercising a form of racism – it says that non-white people can’t help reacting to oppression irrationally. Unlike the left-wing apologists, Harris argues for taking the extremists at face value – when Muslims say they are murdering cartoonists for insulting the prophet Mohammed, they are not really protesting against drones or “white privilege” iii.

Western apologists for Islamism aren’t limited to the p.c. left. The problem goes right to the top. President George W Bush said “Islam is peace” six days after 9/11 iv, and more recently, Barack Obama said “ISIL is not ‘Islamic.’ No religion condones the killing of innocents.” v.

Nawaz admits that, though most Muslims oppose the Islamic State, many of them believe in “honour killings”, where a girl can be murdered for flirting with someone not chosen by her parents. There are thousands of examples of “honour violence” each year in the UK alone, several of which result in death.

But Nawaz points out that, in fact, religious people draw any number of conclusions from the scriptures. Which would mean that some Muslims interpret the scriptures as saying “rape under-age kufr girls”, and some think they say “don’t rape under-age kufr girls”. Islam is a broad church.

There are Islamic theologians undermining the worst aspects of Islamism by re-reading scripture. For example, Nawaz’s ally in Quilliam, Dr Usama Husan, has managed to argue plausibly that apostasy from Islam is not a crime. If a large number of Muslims can be persuaded that that’s what the scriptures mean, then that is what they mean.

I’ll admit that until reading this book, when I heard Islamic “moderates” downplaying the least palatable aspects of their faith, I just thought it was “taqiyah”, or lying. Having skimmed various Muslim religious books, I thought I’d detected that Islam leads to

– violence toward non-believers

– the oppression of women

– hatred of homosexuals

Islam and the Future of Tolerance” made me slightly moderate my opinion.

There are four reasons for this.

1. If it’s good enough for Sam Harris, it’s good enough for me

2. Nawaz is such a good arguer, if you kept calling his arguments “taqiyah”, you’d have to be impervious to reason

3. Like most religions, Islam is so vague and contradictory, it’s possible to draw a wide range of conclusions from it

4. Other religions also advocated crimes against humanity, but their modern followers have given up most of them.

Even if Islam did “logically” lead to throwing gays off buildings and crashing aeroplanes into them, since religious people are, by definition, illogical, why should they follow the logical consequences of their religion? The Church of England hasn’t done that for decades, and even the Pope of Rome has been forced to make concessions to the achievements of the more advanced societies of the global north.

In short, maybe Islam can be reformed. This will not be achieved by bombing Middle-Eastern countries. Nor by statements like my “The difference between my culture and Islam is not relative. It is absolute.” Neither will it be achieved by apologists such as 9/11 truthers and left-wing fellow-travelers.

This reform, if it can be achieved at all, will be achieved by rational unbelievers listening to the fearless criticism of people who know what they’re talking about, such as Maajid Nawaz.

Let’s stop giving credit to the latest thought-crime invented by the left – “Islamophobia”


Gilad Atzmon and Alison Weir are major critics of the elephant in the room – the Jewish Lobby. Both have helped us break from the approach, led by left-wing gatekeepers such as Noam Chomsky, which assumes that unconditional support for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine is in the interests of Western capitalists. In fact, as I showed in my article “Faithful Circle”, support for Israel is against the interests of the vast majority of the West’s inhabitants, rich and poor i.

Atzmon and Weir have both been subject to attempted censorship by groups within the Palestine solidarity movement on both sides of the Atlantic (but not in the Gaza Strip nor the West Bank). These groups try to persuade people not to book Atzmon and Weir to speak on the Palestine question. Atzmon is deliberately provocative, and the humorless left takes everything he says literally. Weir is more careful. Everything she says and writes is well-researched and referenced. It was more difficult to invent a case against her, but eventually Jewish Voice for Peace discovered that she once gave an interview to an obscure radio show run by a guy called Clayton Douglas, whom they claim is a “white supremacist” ii, and started trying to persuade peace groups and Palestine solidarity organizations not to work with her.

That’s not the real reason they don’t want you to listen to Weir. No-one would have heard of Douglas unless JVP had publicized him. A more plausible reason is the success of Weir’s recent “Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the United States Was Used to Create Israel”, iii whose title speaks for itself. Weir’s opponents don’t want us to find out that the main reason for American support for Israel is the Lobby, because this realization might lead to weakening that support. It would also make Jews in the USA feel less comfortable, and Jewish Voice for Peace is more concerned about that than it is about dead Palestinian children.

Despite my respect for Atzmon and Weir, I think it’s illogical when they help spread the latest left-wing debate-stifling accusation – “Islamophobia”. Atzmon thinks Jewish organizations are responsible for stirring up “Islamophobia” iv, whereas I find that these groups often use the word to try to manipulate white guilt to undermine discussion of the negative aspects of Islam. For examples, go to the Anti-Defamation League’s website and search for the word “Islamophobia”. I regard this as homologous with the effort to suppress Weir’s and Atzmon’s arguments on the grounds that they are “anti-semitic”. These allegations are part of the assault on our freedom known as “political correctness”.

Max Blumenthal is an influential gatekeeper, working tirelessly to maintain Jewish control of the Palestine solidarity movement. Despite his vitriolic attacks on her v, Weir generously says his “Great Islamophobic Crusadevi which claims “Nine years after 9/11, hysteria about Muslims in American life has gripped the country” is “an excellent articlevii. In effect, Weir says to Blumenthal “I support your use of hyperbole to exaggerate anti-Muslim sentiment, but I object when you use the same p.c. leftist techniques to smear me as anti-semitic”.

I don’t deny there is some irrational prejudice against Muslims in the West. A 14-year-old Sudanese American boy was arrested in Texas in September 2015 because his teachers thought the clock he brought to school might be a bomb. But look at the reaction. The story rapidly spread on Facebook and Twitter, became front-page news around the world, professional victims were able to make plenty of political capital out of it viii, and the boy was invited to the White House ix. The country is not “saturated with anti-Muslim bigotry and Islamophobia”, as Linda Sarsour claims.

Consider that president George W Bush said, shortly after September 11th 2001, that “Islam is peacex.

Consider how often the media and politicians condemn “Islamophobia” as if it is a thing, but call ISIS the “so-called” Islamic state, as if they want to protect the religion from association with its unpalatable expressions.

Consider the reaction of Australians to the terrorist attack of December 2014. Thousands signed up to #IllRideWithYou, offering Muslims protection against a backlash xi.

Finally, consider that the fear of being accused of “Islamophobia” was one of the reasons the authorities in Britain ignored Muslim gangs raping and trafficking hundreds of under-age girls for decades xii.

We should be free to think critically about Islam and its consequences, without worrying if we are being “Islamophobic”. I am not convinced, as Atzmon is, that Muslim atrocities are likely to be “false flag operations” xiii, nor that Jewish groups like the Anti-Defamation League stir up irrational dislike of Muslims, as Weir believes.

In conclusion, if we want to appeal to the mass of people, most of whom have every interest in ending Western support for the Jewish state, we need to abandon the accusatory, debate-stifling language of the leftist thought police.

i Jay Knott, Faithful Circle, Dissident Voice, September 2010 – http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/09/faithful-circle/

iii Alison Weir, Against Our Better Judgment, February 2014 – http://www.powells.com/biblio/9781495910920

iv Gilad Atzmon, The Jewish Division, April 2010 – http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/gilad-atzmon-the-jewish-division.html

v Alison Weir, video response to Max Blumenthal’s statements against me, September 2015 – http://alisonweir.org/journal/2015/9/15/video-response-to-max-blumenthals-statements-against-me.html

vi Max Blumenthal, The Great Islamic Crusade, Huffington Post, May 2011 – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/the-great-islamophobic-cr_b_799277.html

vii Alison Weir, ADL, Hate Group – Why many people call the “Anti-Defamation League” the “Defamation League”, May 2015 – http://alisonweir.org/journal/2015/5/20/adl-hate-group-why-many-people-call-the-anti-defamation-leag.html

viii Linda Sarsour, Ahmed Mohamed is just one example of the bigotry American Muslims face, the Guardian, September 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/16/ahmed-mohamed-clock-bigotry-american-muslims

x George W Bush, “Islam is Peace”, says President, September 2001 – http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917-11.html

xi ‘I’ll ride with you’: Australians offer to ride home with Muslims on public transport to counter fears of backlash, Daily Mirror, December 2014 – http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/ill-ride-you-australians-offer-4813308

xii Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham (1997 – 2013), August 2014 – http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/file/1407/independent_inquiry_cse_in_rotherham

Anti-fascist logic undermines Palestine solidarity


This is a response to Spencer Sunshine’s article for Political Research Associates, Drawing Lines Against Racism and Fascism, 1. I argue that it doesn’t oppose racial discrimination, rather, it defends one form of it by greatly exaggerating another.

There are a few factual errors in the article. As an example of a passage which I could pick apart, because I directly experienced the events in question, but don’t think it’s worth the effort, here’s Sunshine’s account of the reasoning behind the successful efforts of Jewish leftists to oust a Palestine activist from the co-operative movement:

Pacifica Forum members attended Occupy events in Eugene and Portland, Oregon, attempted to use a left-wing bookstore in Portland to host an antisemitic speaker, and one was a board member at an annual co-operative conference.

But that’s not the main problem. More important is to explain the hidden cause of Mr Sunshine’s logical errors.

The above sentence follows from a passage in which Sunshine asserts, without explanation, that anyone who tolerates the airing of what he labels “far right” ideas, should be treated the same as someone who actually believes these ideas. This is subject to a logical contradiction. Suppose you adopt Sunshine’s prescription, and treat anyone who tolerates any “far right” ideas in the same way as people who actually hold those ideas. What about someone who tolerates people who tolerate “far right” ideas, but doesn’t herself tolerate those ideas? Do you treat her in the same way as those whom she tolerates, who tolerate “far right” ideas? Where do you draw the line?

Whereas most of us might be concerned about how how true or false a given proposition about the world is, Sunshine’s position involves adopting a complex classification system, in which some ideas are classified as “far right”, and some as “progressive”. His elaboration of this classification makes it clear he cares primarily about “anti-semitism”. He uses this term very broadly, to include anyone who challenges Jewish interests.

Apart from the logical absurdity of Sunshine’s position, it could lead to violence.

I’ve written some articles which, while generally what Sunshine would call “progressive”, utilize some “far right” ideas. This is one of them: Invention, Imagination, Race and Nation 2.

Part of Spencer’s anti-fascist front uses violence against peaceful “far right” meetings (see my 2012 article on the incident at Tinley Park 3). So, if generally “progressive” people who make use of some “far right” ideas are regarded as being as bad as these “far right” activists, some of Sunshine’s friends might try to disrupt our meetings. This could lead to a tragedy.

So far, in my experience, anti-fascist harassment has only led to one Palestine solidarity activist getting fired, because he worked at a co-op which was easily persuaded by Jewish activists that he believes “far right” ideas. The real reason was that he was trying to persuade the co-op movement to boycott Israeli goods.

Why take anti-fascism seriously? Sunshine’s article includes warning of “a revival of fascist influence within countercultural music scenes”, and the influence of the “far right” among environmental activists.

The article becomes more serious when Sunshine says the president of the Palestinian rights advocacy group, If Americans Knew, Alison Weir, is “crypto-antisemitic”, because she talks and writes about the power of the Israel Lobby. Since it can be shown that the Lobby is the main reason for American support for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, suppressing discussion of this issue helps it continue (see my article, Faithful Circle 4).

His attempt to discredit Weir is the most obvious giveaway of Sunshine’s real aim – thought-policing the left in the interests of Jewish privilege. Alison Weir is liberal to a fault. Her message of support for the victims of Jewish supremacy is becoming increasingly heard. That’s why Jewish racialists within and without the left are slandering her more than ever.

Another clue as to Sunshine’s covert racialist aims is his attempt to amalgamate any critique of any aspect of Jewish over-representation, in positions of power and influence, with Nazism:

The same goes for those who repeat traditional Nazi-era antisemitic conspiracies, such as that Jews control the government, banking system, or the mass media… while repeating classical antisemitic narratives, deploy code words such as “Zionists,” “Jewish neocons,” or the “Frankfurt School” — instead of “the Jews.”

He wants us to believe that if you attribute the notorious pro-Israel bias in the US media to Jewish over-representation in its ownership, or criticize a large section of the Jewish community for its support for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, or mention the role of the neo-conservatives in persuading the US government to massacre the inhabitants of Arab and Muslim countries in various wars since September 11th 2001, while noting that the majority of the neo-cons are self-identified Jews, you are in the same league as the murderers of Anne Frank.

The degree of Jewish control of the media, and whether or not it matters, are empirical questions. We shouldn’t care at all whether or not a theory conforms to a “classical antisemitic narrative”. Objecting to a position because it sounds like Nazi propaganda is illogical; just because the Nazis claimed the Soviet government murdered the Polish officer corps 5, doesn’t mean it’s not true.

Chutzpah is a Yiddish word meaning “breathtaking hypocrisy”. Sunshine alleges

Allowing Far Right participation can also pose a security risk. Far Right actors may use such opportunities to collect personal information on progressive activists and information about their organizations. This has been an ongoing problem, in particular for antifascist and other groups that monitor the Far Right.

But this is at least as true of allowing anti-fascist participation in progressive movements. The Portland 9/11 Truth Alliance has had its members’ details publicized, because, of the wide range of conspiracy nuts hosted by the group, one or two of them mentioned the idea of Israeli involvement in September 11th. Overt Zionists are copying what anti-fascists do – “doxxing” (publishing the names etc.) of Palestine activists, hoping employers will take notice, while remaining anonymous themselves.

For example, The Canary Missionis publicizing the identities of pro-Palestinian student activists to prevent them from getting jobs after they graduate from college. But the website is keeping its own backers’ identity a secret” 6.

As a result of its chutzpah, the anti-fascist left is immune to irony. Sunshine’s piece treats the Southern Poverty Law Center as if it is an authority. The SPLC describes a group as a hate group if it spreads ideas about some other group of people which inspire a person, or persons, to commit violence against that second group. But the SPLC’s labeling of the Family Research Council as a hate group led a man to shoot a security guard at the group’s headquarters with a 9mm Sig Sauer semi-automatic pistol – which means, using its own criteria, the SPLC is a hate group. The attacker can be heard on this Youtube video admitting to the police that he found the FRC via the SPLC 7.

“Anti-semitism” is one form of racial discrimination which has never been very important in the US. You can tell this by looking at statistics for lynchings – if a particular minority has been seriously discriminated against in US history, you can be sure some of its members will have been murdered by mobs. What the SPLC and its allies mean by “anti-semitism” is opposition to a minority using its privileged position to oppress others. Logically, genuine opponents of racial privilege would surely prioritize undermining Jewish supremacy, rather than exaggerating the danger of white nationalism. The role of anti-fascists like Spencer Sunshine is to try to prevent us from drawing that logical conclusion.

Israeli support for Turkish genocide denial


This month marks the centenary of the alleged murder of over a million Armenians in eastern Turkey by the Ottoman Empire. The Guardian has a detailed article about it:


One should always question official versions of history. This is true, both of the view of Armenia, that it was genocide, and of the Turkish government’s claim that it wasn’t.

Among those questioning the Armenian view is the Israeli government and its supporters. In cooperation with Israeli diplomats, the Anti-Defamation League urged the US congress not to recognize the Armenian massacre as “genocide” because it would make the similar treatment of the European Jews by Germany just one genocide among others, rather than a tragedy of transcendental significance. They don’t want the competition.


The Guardian is in denial about this particular holocaust denial.

Awareness of the genocide grew because of the focus on the Nazi Holocaust in the US and Israel in the 1960s and 1970s.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The marketing of the Shoah did not lead to awareness of, and prevention of, past and future genocides. It had the opposite effect. For example, if the German holocaust was special, the Rwandan holocaust was less special.

The US employed the term under President Ronald Reagan but has retreated since in the face of anger from Turkey, a Nato ally.

And pressure from Israel, the Guardian forgets to add.

The Iran deal – a victory for Israel


The Iran deal is a victory for Israel, leaving her the only nuclear armed power in the Middle East. The fight between Democrats and Republicans is a game. When the Democrats succeed, it makes it look like a setback for Israel. The idea of a two-state solution, which would leave the Palestinians as ethnically-cleansed as they are now, is fiercely opposed, so if it is ever implemented, it will look like a massive concession by Israel. Both US parties are completely subservient to the Lobby. Their only dispute is which policy best serves Jewish interests.

The Dangers of Anti-Racism


Jessica Valenti’s column in the Guardian is usually about the oppression of women. Sometimes, she tries to comment on other left-wing issues, such as “racism”:


Adults should be allowed to have whatever opinions they want, but children do need to be protected against certain views. For example, it’s right to stop them being able to view websites which advocate violence against minorities.

Equally, it is right to shield children against dangerous left-wing ideas. One of the weapons of the Muslim child-rape gangs, whose decades of abuse is currently being uncovered in the UK, was American-style anti-racism.

The pimps are adept at trading on teenage rebellion and use similar methods, according to Crop, of convincing the girls all white people are racist. This is part of the controlling process, to instil guilt in the girls. “Like most teenagers, I was going through a phase of arguing with my mum,” says Gemma. “Amir told me they didn’t understand me and were racist and ignorant. I believed him.” Gemma was given an Asian name by Amir, and told she had to read the Koran, a story support workers tell me is not uncommon. “They erode the girls’ identities,” says Kosaraju, “to make them more compliant and needy.”

Julie Bindel, Mothers of Prevention, http://www.juliebindel.org/?p=76

I pointed this out in a comment on Valenti’s article. It was deleted.


Julie Bindel is one of the few feminists who stood up to the left and put the interests of girls before those of Pakistani men. Guardian hackette Jessica Valenti is, unfortunately, more typical.


Show Racism the Red Card is more than just a bunch of social justice warriors trying to police offensive humour at football matches. It is trying to extend its influence into schools – according to Ged Grebby in the Guardian, “England’s young people aren’t racist – but they need better education“.

A specific example of what Grebby calls “racism” is

Through Show Racism the Red Card’s work in schools, we have found that there is a large amount of negativity when young people are asked questions about “immigration” or “Muslims”

Show Racism the Red Card aims to weaken children’s fear of Muslims. Unfortunately, this fear is justified. It’s true that the majority of Muslim men in the UK are not child-traffickers, but it’s also true that Muslim men are over-represented by a factor of over 150 among child-traffickers. Being wary of Muslims is just like being wary of strange men – most strange men aren’t child-molestors, but we teach children to use statistics to err on the side of caution. It should be exactly the same with Muslims, but political correctness undermines our ability to teach children to defend themselves.

Footnote 1, June 27, 2015 – According to a report in the Daily Telegraph, the police suppressed a report into Muslim grooming gangs just before the 2010 election “to avoid inflaming racial tensions”.

Footnote 2, June 28, 2015 – This interview with Lauren Southern describes feminists inventing “rape culture” in European societies, while ignoring real rape culture in backward countries, and outposts of backward countries, in places like Rotherham, UK.

Footnote 3, November 1, 2015 – I received an email about an paper on “racism” in children’s books entitled “The elephant in the room: picturebooks, philosophy for children and racism“, by Darren Chetty. It argues that children should be taught anti-racist ideas to counter these negative influences.

The paper is ridiculous, but given what we know about the susceptibility of people like social workers and schoolteachers to ridiculous p.c. ideas, it’s not completely harmless.

The author of “The Elephant in the Room” explicitly denies he’s in favour of “white guilt”:

“Lest I be accused of such a thing, I am not suggesting that White children be made to feel guilty.”

Because he’s so up-front about it, I think we can assume he is being sincere. But, regardless of his intentions, it’s easy for less scrupulous people to use some of the ideas of Critical Race Theory to manipulate the weakness known as “white guilt” in credulous children. For example, Pakistanis in Rotherham used white guilt to blackmail underage girls into having sex with them.

According to Julie Bindel, writing in Standpoint magazine,

“The pimps routinely tell their victims that their parents are racist towards Asian people and that they disapprove of the relationships because the men are of Pakistani Muslim heritage.” 

However, she also made the mistake of giving some credit to the “anti-racist” viewpoint:

“Some of the parents I met were racist, and some had developed almost a phobia against Asian men, fuelled by the misinformation and bigotry trotted out by racist groups in response to the pimping gangs.”

Despite this attempt to appease Muslims and their allies, Bindel was listed as “Islamophobic” on the website “Islamophobia Watch”.

After all, if it’s Islamophobic for “racist groups” to complain about Muslim rape gangs, isn’t it Islamophobic when a progressive such as Bindel does the same?

Concepts like “racism” and “Islamophobia” are worse than useless.

Footnote 4, January 16, 2016 – I just came across the most comprehensive examination of the effect of anti-racist legislation on the ability of the UK police to stop Muslim grooming gangs I’ve seen yet – “Rotherham: the Perfect Storm“, by Anne Marie Waters.

How differently the US government treated the murders of Rachel Corrie and Kayla Mueller

Rachel and Kayla

Rachel Corrie and Kayla Mueller were both American peace activists who were killed in their twenties while peacefully opposing political violence in the Middle East, Rachel in 2003, and Kayla in 2015.

The White House treated these two similar murders quite differently.

Google "Kayla Mueller site:whitehouse.gov"

You’ll find this


which says

She worked with humanitarian organizations in India, Israel, and the Palestinian territories, compelled by her desire to serve others.

Google "Rachel Corrie site:whitehouse.gov"

You’ll find nothing.

Rachel was murdered by the Israelis, Kayla by the Islamic extremists of ISIS. Rachel was run over by an Israeli bulldozer while she was trying to prevent the demolition of a Palestinian house. The driver had a clear view of her. ISIS claimed Kayla was killed in an air strike. However, ISIS have murdered numerous hostages, prisoners of war and civilians, and even if it was an air strike, ISIS are responsible for taking an innocent civilian into a war zone.

Some would explain the differential treatment of the murder of these two women by the fact that the Republicans controlled the White House in 2003, and the Democrats in 2015. This implies that, if an activist like Rachel Corrie was killed by the Israelis today, the White House would react in a similar fashion to the way it reacts to murders by ISIS. It would treat Israel as an enemy. Right?

President Bush did speak to Israel’s prime minister about Corrie’s death. He accepted Ariel Sharon’s promise of a “thorough, credible, and transparent investigation.” The investigation took place, and the bulldozer driver was exonerated.


UK government acts against enablers of Muslim child abuse


The government has taken over Rotherham council. Last year, a report found that at least 1400 under-age girls had been groomed, raped, and prostituted by organized gangs of Muslim men in the town of Rotherham from 1997 thru 2013.

The new report (PDF) is even more damning. It not only condemns Rotherham’s authority for failing to protect the town’s most vulnerable inhabitants, it found that after the first report was published, the council went into denial, trying to cover its reputation, rather than reform itself.

So the central government has taken over the running of Rotherham from the Labour Party.

But the Conservative-run government itself is implicated in its own child-molesting scandals. It recently revealed that Margaret Thatcher herself directly helped prevent the apprehension of a paedophile.

Another problem with the government’s response is that it only affects Rotherham, and its 250,000 citizens. But the problem — Pakistanis, poverty and political correctness — exists in many areas of the UK.

From Louise Casey’s new report:

Terrible things happened in Rotherham and on a significant scale. Children were sexually exploited by men who came largely from the Pakistani heritage community. Not enough was done to acknowledge this, to stop it happening, to protect children, to support victims and to apprehend perpetrators.

Upon arriving in Rotherham, these I thought were the uncontested facts. My job was to conduct an inspection and decide whether the council was now fit for purpose.

However, this was not the situation I encountered when I reached Rotherham. Instead, I found a council in denial. They denied that there had been a problem, or if there had been, that it was as big as was said. If there was a problem they certainly were not told – it was someone else’s job. They were no worse than anyone else. They had won awards. The media were out to get them.

See also https://thejayreport.com/2014/09/18/how-anti-fascists-helped-muslim-grooming-gangs.

Why do we care about “Islamophobia”?


This cartoon offends millions of people, but I don’t have to worry that one of them will kill me for publishing it. This is not cultural relativism. The difference between my culture and Islam is not relative. It is absolute.

“Cultural relativism opens the way to only one thing: religious totalitarianism.”, says the new editor of Charlie Hebdo, Gérard Biard.

Not everyone agrees.

Since the murders in Paris, two types of apologists have tried to minimize them: for simplicity, I will use the deliberately offensive labels ‘anti-racists‘, and ‘truthers‘.

First, the anti-racists. Seventeen people were murdered by Islamic extremists, and a common anti-racist reaction was to blame “white supremacy” and “Islamophobia”.

To be fair, anti-racists do condemn the machine-gunning of cartoonists, but quickly move on to blame the West in general for having been uniquely imperialist for hundreds of years. More specifically, they chastise the Western cartoonists, journalists, bloggers and others, who stir up “Islamophobia” by practicing freedom of expression, by savagely criticizing and satirizing the repressive, misogynistic, homophobic and homicidal aspects of the Muslim religion.

Here’s Kim Petersen in Dissident Voice:

The Charlie Hebdo White Power Rally in Paris

And Richard Seymour in Jacobin Mag:

On Charlie Hebdo

Bullshit. Murdering cartoonists has nothing to do with white power. It is not justified in any way by, nor even connected to, American wars in the Middle East, Israeli crimes in Palestine, drones, or torture.

The Charlie Hebdo murders were carried out by religious people, whose religion says that insulting their prophet should be punished by death. They therefore punished some of those who insulted their prophet, by killing them.

The other kind of useful idiots for Muslim murderers are the ‘truthers’ – people who claim that what look like Muslim murders are actually being carried out by the Western security services, most probably Mossad. I admire Gilad Atzmon, but not on this occasion:

The title suggests the Charlie Hebdo massacre was “possibly” a false flag operation, but the article ends by saying “It is quite probable that this was another false flag operation. Who could be behind it?  Use your imagination…”

“Another” false flag operation implies that we have already established that many of the other alleged Islamic terror attacks were actually carried out by the CIA, MI5 and/or Mossad. Atzmon asks us to use our imagination. I prefer to use my reason.

P.S. June 7 – here is a much better article from Gilad Atzmon: http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2015/6/6/french-comedian-to-receive-international-free-speech-award. I agree that Dieudonné deserves an award for free speech, but I don’t see why it is necessary to contrast him with the editors of Charlie Hebdo. Is it fair to say

“They paid a high price for insulting Islam but it was totally unexpected, since this is tolerated by the government, so it is hard to say that they showed courage in the face of repression”?

Given the murder of Theo van Gogh in 2004, the 2006 protests in Denmark (“Massacre those who insult Islam”), and the Toulouse killings of 2012, it must have been obvious that there was a danger of Islamic terrorists attacking Charlie Hebdo. The cartoonists were courageous, and they were not obliged to parody privilege as well as Islam.

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: http://www.leninology.co.uk/2012/06/racial-formation-in-britain.html.

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: https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/33612/Socialists+stand+with+the+oppressed.

This is the Guardian‘s report on the same incident: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/apr/30/six-plead-guilty-plot-edl.

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 Rotherhamhttp://www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/file/1407/independent_inquiry_cse_in_rotherham

ii Jay Knott, The Mass Psychology of Fascism, October 2008 – http://pacificaforum.org/mass

iii White girls seen as ‘easy meat’ by Pakistani rapists, says Jack Straw, the Guardian, 8 January 2011 – http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jan/08/jack-straw-white-girls-easy-meat

iv Jay Knott, What is Islamophobia?, January 2013 – https://thejayreport.com/2013/01/03/what-is-islamophobia/

vi Campaign to Stop Race Documentary, BBC News, August 17, 2004 – http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3572776.stm

vii Julie Bindel, Gangs, Girls and Grooming: the Truth, Standpoint Magazine, December 2010 – http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/3576/full

viii Andrew Norfolk, Police Files Reveal Vast Child Protection Scandal, The Times, London, September 24, 2012 – http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/crime/article3547661.ece

ix Joseph Harker, It’s time to face up to the problem of sexual abuse in the white community, the Guardian, May 6, 2013 – http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/06/sexual-abuse-in-white-community

xi Andrew Norfolk, Reality of Sexual Grooming Gangs in the UK, the Sikh Awareness Society, November 21, 2012 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbUIfvYbjRc&t=1325

xii Ella Cockbain, Grooming and the ‘Asian sex gang predator’: the construction of a racial crime threat, April 2013 http://rac.sagepub.com/content/54/4/22.short

The Perils of Anti-Racism


I wrote “Yes, the West is Comparatively Racism-Free” for Dissident Voice.

The Dissident Voice website usually publishes my articles, after subjecting them to accurate, and welcome, editorial criticism. On this occasion, they demurred. This article attempts to reinforce my argument, which Dissident Voice rejected. In a nutshell:

We – in Canada, Britain, the USA, etc. – live in among the least racially prejudiced societies known. We are anti-racist to a fault.

I gave several examples. Recently, another, horrifying example of the excesses of political correctness has emerged in the UK. Hundreds of children have been sexually abused by Asian men for years. These men also trafficked girls to other Muslims, threatening to set them on fire if they reported the abuse.

It’s not just in the right-wing tabloids, such as the Daily Mail. The liberal media, the BBC and the Guardian, have also reported that fear of being accused of racism has hindered the investigation of rape and prostitution of girls as young as eleven.

I don’t expect the reader to take my word, or even that of the Guardian, for it. Download the report, by professor Alexis Jay for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council:


By far the majority of perpetrators were described as ‘Asian’ by victims.

She also reported in 2006 that young people in Rotherham believed at that time that the Police dared not act against Asian youths for fear of allegations of racism.

Muslims don’t just exploit white girls.

It’s worth noting that

The Deputy Children’s Commissioner’s report reached a similar conclusion to the Muslim Women’s Network research, stating ‘one of these myths was that only white girls are victims of sexual exploitation by Asian or Muslim males, as if these men only abuse outside of their own community, driven by hatred and contempt for white females’.

In other words, Asian gangs exploit Asian girls as well as white ones.

My point is simply that fear of being accused of racism paralyzed the response of the authorities to child rape by primarily Asian men.

Therefore, if you want to protect children, you need to resist the effects of anti-racism.

By the way, this report is about Rotherham, a borough of around 250,000 people. Similar things have happened in other deprived Northern towns. It’s probably the tip of an iceberg.

PS. Six months before the Jay report, a right-wing think-tank issued its own, even more detailed, well-referenced, and shocking investigation of Muslim child rape gangs. It also goes a lot further into the argument that anti-racism was one of the main reasons for the failure of the authorities to stop the abuse. It goes as far as to say that organizations like Unite Against Fascism helped perpetuate the rape and exploitation of schoolgirls by Muslims, by successfully pressurizing a television channel to withdraw a documentary about it (page 208).


PPS. From less than a year ago: Unite Against Fascism organized a protest to “defend multicultural Rotherham”: http://alt-sheff.org/events/2345/print/

Contrasting media reactions to massacres in South Africa and Gaza


After the Soweto massacre

The Guardian view on Soweto and the rise of anti whiteism

Of course, it wasn’t like that. In 1976, the Guardian and the rest of the Western press didn’t worry that the massacre of black schoolchildren in Soweto, South Africa, by the police, supported by a large section of the white population, would result in hostility to white people.

The Guardian view on Gaza and the rise of antisemitism

But today, when Jews are doing pretty much the same thing, the Guardian is worried that people might not like them.

Attacks on synagogues, Jewish shops and individuals – even children – are rising. They are inexcusable.

This article whines about “antisemitism” in Europe, amalgamating the Toulouse killings by a lone demented Muslim two years ago, with protests against Israel today, and claiming that French people defending themselves against the JDL are “racist”. Yet the article contains an admission:

Yes, Jews feel bound up with Israel, they believe in its right to survive and thrive. But that does not mean they should be held responsible for its policy…

Firstly, not all Jews believe in Israel’s right to “survive and thrive”. Secondly, those that do are responsible — not for its “policy” — it’s not a question of policy. Israel doesn’t do ethnic cleansing — Israel is ethnic cleansing.

Israeli Jews murder hundreds of people, including many children, and Jews around the world support them. Naturally, there is hostility toward these murderers and their supporters. The media is at least as concerned with the reaction, which it labels “antisemitism”, as it is with the cause. The liberal veneer comes off — the Guardian and most of the rest of the media subordinates itself to Jewish interests.


A lucky child who survived the Gaza massacre

PS. The Guardian editorial is a watered-down version of an article the previous day by Jon Henley – “worst times since the Nazis”: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/07/antisemitism-rise-europe-worst-since-nazis

PPS. Another example of concern about antisemitism, from Valerie Tarico on Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/valerie-tarico/sophisticated-liberal-jew_b_191135.html

Israel has violated international law and may well be guilty of war crimes.


I get so overwhelmed by the flood of thinly veiled Jew-loathing that I can’t respond to anything else.

Hopefully, this means she’ll shut the fuck up.

PPPS. Finally, here’s p.c. leftist Richard Seymour, also getting his knickers in a twist about “antisemitism” in Europe: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/08/the-anti-zionism-of-fools/