Category: uk

Grooming and our ignoble tradition of racialising crime – the Guardian, 6 January 2011

Dubious claims about Muslim men grooming white girls hide legitimate worries about a system that fails victims of abuse

 

The Tribe: The Liberal Left and the System of Diversity, by Ben Cobley.

A longstanding member of the UK Labour Party has written a book exposing the extent to which diversity politics has taken over Labour and various other institutions of the British state, and some of the consequences. For example, the cover-up of the activities of Muslim child-rape gangs, and the sacking of a Nobel Prize-winning cancer researcher for making a joke which a feminist misunderstood.

It says everything I’ve been writing here for years, in greater depth, explaining what diversity is, and why it is so problematic.

One thing missing is any examination of the idea that identities are created by real oppression. The author seems to think that black people are lured into identity politics by politicians, whereas in its origins, black identity was a response to racism.

The other omission is questioning whether there is a genetic basis to the weakness in white European societies which allows the cancer of diversity to get a grip. For that, you have to look beyond disgruntled traditional leftists. 

EDIT: 26 September. I have one other major issue with this book. But it would be too predictable for me to say what it is.

Tommy Robinson is Britain’s best-known “Islamophobe”. I regard this label as a compliment. I follow him on Facebook, because I agree with some of what he says. I think he should be allowed to say whatever he wants about Islam, without being persecuted by the police, as he is at present. (See Robinson’s biography “Enemy of the State”, and my blog entry “Enemies of the State”).

I don’t sympathise with his attitude to patriotism, monarchy and the armed forces. But I don’t bother to argue with his followers on Facebook about these subjects, since there is one far more important subject on which we disagree, one where his view undermines everything else he says.

He is a keen supporter of Israel, not realising that this little state has a lot to answer for in helping perpetuate the most important problem he is concerned about – Islamic terrorism.

I don’t mean the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948 by Jews is a reason for Islamic terrorism in London in 2017. Leftists sometimes hint at this, and Islamic terrorists sometimes refer to it, but this is just an excuse. To use Jewish terrorism to excuse Islamic terrorism is no more logical or ethical than the Israeli argument that the ethnic cleansing of Jews by Arabs is a reason for the ethnic cleansing of Arabs by Jews.

The reason Israel is partly responsible for Islamic terrorism is more complicated, and I explain it below.

Having had his freedom of speech suppressed, often violently, by the authorities, leftists and Muslims, on numerous occasions, Robinson is a keen defender of freedom. Except for people he disagrees with – he called on the mayor of London to ban the “al-Quds Day” march on 18 June 2017, smearing all support for Palestinian rights as support for terrorism.

The “anti-fascist” left shout “Nazi” and “white supremacist” at Robinson and his followers, who wave Israeli flags and promote the most mindlessly uncritical Zionist propaganda you can find.

Israel is not a product of white supremacy. It’s a product of Jewish supremacy.

Robinson amalgamates resistance to Israel with Sunni extremist attacks on civilians in the West. But Israel is not an opponent of these Sunni extremists.

Islam is divided into two main branches – Shi’ite and Sunni.(See “Understanding the Origins of Wahhabism and Salafism” on the Jamestown Foundation’s website).

The chief inspiration of terrorism is a sub-branch of the Sunni branch, Salafism. The main source of this ideology, the extremely literal interpretation of the Koran and some of the Hadiths which drive ISIS and its ilk, is the Gulf States, with Saudi Arabia at the head. The British government has suppressed a report which explains the link between the Gulf States and terrorism:  “Report calls for public inquiry into Gulf funding of British extremism”, Patrick Wintour, The Guardian, 5 July 2017.

Most of ISIS’s victims have been Shi’ite civilians in Iraq. The Shi’ite Islamic state, Iran, and the Shi’ite army, Hezbollah, have been determined opponents of ISIS. 

The two Islamic groups which concern Israel are the Shi’ite group Hezbollah, based in Lebanon, and the Sunni group Hamas, based in the Gaza Strip. Both are classified by the submissive US government as “terrorist”. Neither of these groups have ever organised attacks in Western Europe or North America. Neither of them are of any concern to Western people, who would be better off taking a neutral stance on their conflict with Israel.

The groups which do attack Western targets are al-Qaeda and its offshoots, including ISIS. Israel supporters have an interest in confusing Westerners about these groups and their relationship to Hamas and Hezbollah. Particularly Hezbollah, which has been fighting against ISIS and al-Qaeda for years, and which is therefore fighting in the interests of Western people, alongside the governments of Syria and Iran, with Russian support.

Yet, incredibly, when president Trump visited Saudi Arabia in May 2017, he unconditionally backed the Sunni monarchy, and identified Iran as the main problem. If the US really wanted to beat ISIS, it could have done so already, simply by giving support to Syria, Iran and Hezbollah. Instead, on 18 June 2017, the USA shot down a Syrian jet. It can’t be that Trump doesn’t have the information – he just has to ask the CIA * and the State Department. There’s only one possible explanation for his seemingly lunatic inversion of the true state of affairs – that is the lobby.

Saudi Arabia does have a well-funded lobby in the USA. But surely it pales in comparison with the Israel Lobby. Senators and congressmen don’t regularly give speeches putting Saudi interests before those of their own country – but they do grovel before Israel.

Israel is in an unstated, de facto alliance with Saudi Arabia and several other Sunni states. The reason for this is they have a common interest in countering Iranian influence. One of the battlegrounds is Yemen, where the Saudis have caused a famine which has killed thousands, and created a cholera epidemic. The other is Syria. There, Israel wants to prevent Iran achieving a “Shi’ite corridor” from Iran to the Mediterranean Sea, by “population transfers” (moving Shi’ite civilians into Sunni areas, and vice-versa).

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu… said Israel views “with utmost gravity” Iranian attempts to gain a foothold in Syria or to provide advanced weapons to Hezbollah, its Lebanese proxy

– Breitbart, 25 June 2017

Preventing a decisive Syrian victory is in Israeli interests. A byproduct is fertile ground for the training of terrorists who attack Western countries.

It’s therefore moronic to support Israel because you think it has a common cause with the inhabitants of Western countries – fighting Islamic terrorism. Not all “terrorists” are the same – in fact, they’re not all terrorists. At least one so-called terrorist organisation is potentially an ally of the Western countries. If only Western politicians were as canny and cynical as their Israeli counterparts.

---

Enemy of the State, Tommy Robinson, December 2015 – http://www.amazon.com/Tommy-Robinson-Enemy-State/dp/0957096496

Understanding the Origins of Wahhabism and Salafism, Trevor Stanley, 2005 – https://jamestown.org/program/understanding-the-origins-of-wahhabism-and-salafism/

“Report calls for public inquiry into Gulf funding of British extremism”, Patrick Wintour, The Guardian, 5 July 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/05/report-calls-for-public-inquiry-into-gulf-funding-of-british-extremism

*  Woops! Just after writing this, I read the following, from the new director of the CIA: “Pompeo said that while Islamic State remains an “enormous” threat to the US, he considered Iran a greater menace”, Mike Pompeo, 24 June 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/24/trump-cia-edward-snowden-leaks-state-secrets

“Israel Strikes Syrian Army Two Days In Row Following Projectile Fire into Golan Heights”, Breitbart, 25 June 2017, http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2017/06/25/israel-strikes-syrian-army-two-days-row-following-projectile-fire-golan-heights/

 

 

Caution: To paraphrase Orwell, some things are true, even though the Internet says they are true.

---

Footnote, October 23rd 2016 – Islamist girls’ school that taught pupils gay people should be killed and men could beat their wives forced to close – the Independent, October 14th.

The British Labour Party has been under a lot of pressure from Jewish racial supremacists recently, to purge all critics of Israel from its ranks. In particular, those who somehow can’t see the “legitimacy” of the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, on which the Jewish state’s existence depends. If those driven out of their homeland in 1948, plus their descendants, were allowed back into Israel, they would outnumber the Jews.

This pressure has taken the familiar form of allegations of “anti-semitism”. This includes what I just said above – denying the “legitimacy” of Israel.

It even includes pointing out that the Nazis and the Zionists collaborated before World War II. This is what veteran leftist leader Ken Livingstone has been suspended for. There is overwhelming evidence of this collaboration. Before they decided to try to kill them, the Nazis were in favour of the Jews moving somewhere outside Europe – Palestine, for example. This coincided with the aim of the Zionists, so they worked together.

One example of this co-operation was the Havara Agreement [1], signed in August 1933 by the Nazi government and the Zionist Federation of Germany, to help facilitate the emigration of German Jews to Palestine.

Zionists were still collaborating with the Nazi government in 1944, when the attempted genocide of the Jews was in top gear, arguing against resistance. They allowed the murder of 450,000 Hungarian Jews in return for a few hundred being allowed to escape to Palestine, according to chapter twenty-five of Lenni Brenner’s Zionism in the Age of the Dictators (PDF) [2], “Hungary, the Crime Within a Crime”. This is just one example from many of Nazi/Zionist collaboration from Brenner’s detailed historical masterpiece.

Labour has responded exactly as I predicted – by capitulating. It is expelling long-standing comrades for telling the truth, and they are apologising. They don’t seem to realise that throwing scraps of food to the wolves at the door only encourages them. The Labour Party is Israeli-occupied territory.

1. The Havara Agreement, Wikipedia, retrieved April 29, 2016: https://archive.is/PvFJa.
2. Zionism in the Age of the Dictators, Lenni Brenner, Lawrence Hill publishing, 1983. Retrieved as a PDF file April 29: http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres/LBzad.pdf.

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 Tolerance” ⁱ, 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.

---

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.

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 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 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 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.

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.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2238155/We-RIGHT-foster-children-away-Ukip-couple-insists-social-workers.html

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:

http://pacificaforum.org/reactions-to-stories-about-muslim-grooming-gangs-in-england

Cat Stevens is sixty-seven.

---