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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
“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.
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-Fascismii, 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 yeariv 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.
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 documentaryvi, and the mainstream media’s rejection of Julie Bindel’s 2010 articlevii, Norfolkviii 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 community” ix. 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 Fascismpersuaded 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 threat” xii. 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:
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 civil lawsuit against the city alleged that the men’s convictions were racially motivated and that their confessions, upon which convictions were largely based, were coerced by law enforcement.
Note that these are two separate allegations: “racially motivated” and “coerced by law enforcement”. Obviously, their confessions were coerced – they wouldn’t have confessed to something they didn’t do otherwise. “Racially motivated” is a more difficult charge to prove.
I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of the Anarchist Party. I sometimes find it amusing to see its members engaging in self-destructive behavior. On the other hand, some of them sometimes do useful things, like fighting for the poor, the environment and so on. So it’s sad to see how they never learn.
Political correctness has always been useful to the state. During the Vietnam War, the government paid provocateurs to accuse anti-war activists of “racism”. This worked, because activists are worried by this unfounded allegation.
It’s the same with “sexism”, and so on. Despite inhabiting the most egalitarian section of the least sexist, racist and homophobic society in history, anarchists are easy prey for provocateurs.
Several anarchists and environmentalists are doing decades in prison because of police informants. At an anarchist conference in Portland, Oregon, May 9-11 2014, some presenters tried to address this. But the presentation was disrupted by radical feminists shouting “we will not be silenced by your violence”.
Reading through the discussions about what happened, it’s easy to see the mistake the anarchist milieu has made. There have been numerous cases of false allegations of violence, particularly from black women iiiiii. The mainstream media tend to take their side (for example the Wall Street Journal, the Economist, FT Magazine, the New York Times, New York Magazine, the Daily News, Newsday, the Post-Gazette, Salon, the Daily Beast, NBC and Cosmopolitan). This is evidence that this society isn’t as “racist” and “patriarchal” as anarchists believe. But the p.c. left don’t do evidence – they do blackmail:
Please come and support the survivors who Kristian Williams has targeted, support the feminists and survivor-supporters who Kristian Williams has deemed as “divisive”, support a rad community that supports survivors and values women.
The article is also unbalanced in its emphasis on doubting survivors.
It should read “doubting alleged survivors”, but it doesn’t occur to the writer to doubt allegations by feminists. Though he is a seasoned campaigner for victims of the legal system, in this case, he rejects the presumption of innocence, a presumption which the “capitalist courts” extend to defendants.
Notice also the vagueness of the allegations. It’s impossible to defend oneself against them:
(My friend was one: she was accused of violating the venue’s “Safer Space” policy, “triggering” audience members, and employing “patriarchal mechanisms” in her statement.) Others were called out for unspecified abusive or sexist behavior.
The feminists were so loud and obnoxious, there was a danger that the police would be called to restore order. So the speakers abandoned the meeting. This is their explanation:
When we were notified that the police were preparing to intervene, we decided it was best to end the event and leave. To be clear — no one on the panel called the cops. And we also didn’t tell anyone else to call the cops. This should be obvious to anyone who was present at our panel, as none of us used our phones or in any way communicated with anyone else who used a phone during this time. We did everything within our control to prevent this from happening and were assured prior to the event that no one would call the cops and that no one would be arrested. We would not have agreed to speak if not for these assurances. As speakers, we have had two security priorities throughout this entire experience: 1) ensuring that the cops did not get involved, and 2) ensuring our ability to speak about an issue we believe is critically important to our struggles. In the end, we resigned ourselves to sacrificing our second priority (our ability to speak) to ensure that the first was achieved. Our exit from the room was the only way we knew of to ensure the safety of others who were present — including those who were being disruptive.
So, in effect, the feminists, chanting “we will not be silenced by your violence”, used the threat of state violence to silence the speakers.
The solution is simple. When someone claims to be a “victim”, ask for evidence. When so-called “survivors” try to shout down a speaker, they should be thrown out of the meeting.
But there’s no chance of this. The fact that an attempt to talk about how to resist infiltration is so easily sabotaged shows something about this movement. It has no chance of succeeding.
But the p.c. left isn’t an isolated bubble. It can be used by the authorities to undermine resistance to war and economic hardship. It has also been used to undermine the boycott of the products of Israel.
The anti-fascists and Zionists of AFA and Hope not Hate have made a big mistake in attacking the United Kingdom Independence Party. So long as they harassed obnoxious outfits like the British National Party, they were on safe ground. But UKIP has the support of millions.
The self-styled progressive sections of the politically switched-on classes, whose visceral contempt for the white working class makes every other prejudice in 21st century Britain pale into insignificance in comparison.
If the Duke University false-allegation-of-rape case of 2006 were nothing more than the persecution of three students by a university, solely because they are white, male, and allegedly wealthy, and that their accuser is black and female, it would show nothing more than the corruption of one university by political correctness – the reverse of discrimination against minorities, women, etc..
But the fact that the district attorney, the local police department, and most of the media, joined eighty-eight academics at the university, in stating or implying their guilt, long after it was clear that no crime had taken place, shows that it’s not just academia. Political correctness is more deeprooted and widespread.
Though they were proven innocent – rather than merely “not guilty”, the DA who prosecuted them was imprisoned for misconduct in the case, and their accuser convicted of murder, much of the mainstream media, for example, the New York Times, Salon, the Wall Street Journal, the Economist, the Daily News, Newsday, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, FT Magazine, and the Daily Beast, continues to try to convince the public that they were in fact guilty of something: How the Media Again Failed on the Duke Lacrosse Story.
The continuing saga of the Duke lacrosse three contradicts the hypothesis of professional anti-racists that the USA’s dominant culture is white supremacist, etc..
The Southern Poverty Law Center, known to its admirers by the initials $PLC, has exceeded its normal bounds of logic and reason. Reacting to the murder of three attendees at a Jewish Center in Kansas City on April 13th, the $PLC argues
The fact of the matter is that more people have been killed domestically by radical right extremists than Islamic extremists since 9/11
Since September 11th, 2001, more people have been murdered in the USA by white extremists than by Muslims. But if you choose September 10, 2001, as your starting date, the opposite is true.
Notice also that the $PLC distinguishes between ‘radical right extremists’ and ‘Islamic extremists’. Despite their medieval views, the latter can’t be classified as ‘radical right extremists’, because most of them aren’t white!
P.S. Good news – the $PLC and the “Anti” Defamation League have been dropped by the FBI.
Taking advantage of the fact that, in anti-racism legislation, the burden of proof has shifted toward the defendant, a gang of gypsies falsely accused a British schoolteacher of racial harassment.
Mrs Hampson found herself involved in a clash with a family of travellers who had illegally established themselves on green-belt land and had blocked her way home one day, you might have expected the grandmother to receive a decent hearing from the authorities.
Knott’s accusations against me are a bit schizophrenic. On the one hand, he chides me for not discussing “Jewish power.” At the same time, his inaccurate descriptions of me and my motivation echo Zionist mistruths about me.
But in regard to Jewish power, I merely argue the book hints at it, “doesn’t take this further”, and “we need a theory” which explains it. My review starts by lavishly praising her book, and her skill in holding a conference against Zionism in the occupied territories.
However, I have valid criticisms. Alison is correct that, unlike her, I don’t take the State Department’s statements seriously. Its secretary recently lectured the president of Russia, to universal derision:
You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext
She is also right to say that I am wrong to say that her book mentions the USS Liberty, attacked by Israel in 1967. However, her organizations and websites distribute a patriotic version of this tragic story. But a naval spy ship is a warship, even in peacetime, and this was during the Vietnam war. Weir says claiming it was a warship is “echoing Zionist mistruths”, but in this case, they are telling the truth.
Same with the Zionist attack on the King David hotel in 1948: it’s not a war crime to bomb a building partly occupied by enemy soldiers. Civilians staying in that hotel were idiots.
More seriously, an important part of my critique goes like this:
Patriotism also leads Weir to quote opponents of the Lobby within the Pentagon as follows: ‘no group in this country should be permitted to influence our policy to the point where it could endanger our national security‘ without realizing that this could imply the suppression of any movement which endangered US imperialism.
She responds:
Knott foolishly writes, “Patriotism also leads Weir to quote opponents of the Lobby within the Pentagon”
This misses out the sinister quotation from the Pentagon, which I found in her book, implying the suppression of all unpatriotic movements, not just Zionism.
In response to my sarcastic remark
Weir gives the impression America is inhabited by well-meaning, simple, Christian folk, who are manipulated into supporting the oppression of the Palestinians by dishonest, clever Jews
she says I have ‘missed an important point in the book: “Zionist” is not synonymous with “Jew.”’. But my interpretation of her book does not imply that. “Manipulated by dishonest, clever Jews” does not imply that I think that she thinks that all Jews are dishonest, or clever, or Zionist. Why does she get defensive when I mention the J-word? I’ve consistently argued that the Palestine solidarity movement should not dignify the allegation of “anti-semitism” with a response. To Zionists, this concern surely looks like a weakness. It only reinforces their elitist attitude.
P.S. 5/28/14 – Read Alison’s latest over-the-top tribute to the USS Liberty:
France’s most popular comedian is a black guy called Dieudonné M’Bala. One of his supporters is a footballer named Nicholas Anelka. Dieudonné has been prosecuted under France’s “anti-racist” (anti-freedom) laws, fined and had shows canceled for making a gesture called the quenelle (see picture). Roughly translated, this gesture means “up yours to the establishment”.
Anelka made the gesture, in support of Dieudonné, during a game for his (ex) club in the English Premier League, West Bromwich Albion, in December last year.
Part of the “anti-racist” left, and some of its Zionist allies, claimed that the gesture is “abusive and/or indecent and/or insulting and/or improper,” and “included a reference to ethnic origin and/or race and/or religion or belief“, and an “independent” commission agreed. Among the allegations is that the “quenelle” gesture is an “inverted Nazi salute”. The idea that black Frenchmen would give Nazi salutes is too ridiculous to waste time with.
But the cowards of the Football Association, Anelka’s club, and its sponsor, fell over each other to grovel to the “anti-racists”. Anelka was suspended for five games, and fined. He was also ordered to undergo “education” – reminiscent of Stalinist “re-education camps”. The final straw was when he was told to apologize.
Anelka delivered an inspiring “up yours” to his employers, and to the p.c. establishment in general, by tearing up his contract. He tweeted:
Following talks between the club and me, propositions were made to me in order to reintegrate me into the squad under certain conditions that I cannot accept. Wishing to retain my integrity, I have therefore taken the decision to free myself and put an end to the contract linking me with West Bromwich Albion to 2014, with immediate effect. i
West Brom are right to say that this is an “unprofessional” way to resign. By resigning on Twitter, rather than through the official channels, Anelka showed his contempt for them.
The “anti-racist” establishment isn’t really about fighting “racism”. Persecuting a footballer for an obscure gesture in support of a French comedian is not going to have much effect on attitudes in England. It’s about power – trying to make people accept being told what to think, taking advantage of our eagerness to please, our fear of being accused of wicked thoughts.
Normally, this guilt is turned against white people, in the guise of defending black people. But the attacks on Anelka and Dieudonné indicate that it’s more about Jewish power than black advancement.
An article on Counterpunchi, says that Shlomo Sand, the Israeli historian who produced evidence that most Jews have no ancestors who lived in Palestine, has gone to ground. Anotherii, in the New York Times, reports an attempt by scientists to analyze DNA to find out how much relatively recent African genes are mixed in with European (we’re all Africans if you go back far enough).
“In some sense we don’t want to talk to historians,” Falush said. “There’s a great virtue in being objective: You put the data in and get the history out. We do think this is a way of reconstructing history by just using DNA.”
Why not talk to historians? Falush is too polite to say so, but historians are in the section of academia known as “humanities”, which has been corrupted by political correctness. In the West, this leads to unscientific “anti-racist” narratives. In Israel, it’s the opposite.
the jay report 