Stephen Lawrence was a black London teenager. He was murdered in 1993 by a gang of white criminals, shouting racial insults. It took twenty years for the legal system to convict his murderers.
The law’s delay led to the widespread belief that it was because of “institutional racism”. In contrast, this brave investigation, “Racist Murder and Pressure Group Politics”, questions the consensus view, and argues that the initial failure to prosecute was simply the result of lack of evidence: http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cs05.pdf (PDF).
Lawrence’s murder led the government to set up the Macpherson enquiry, which defined a racial incident as “any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person“. This gives complete freedom to anyone to define anyone else as a racist: http://spiked-online.com/newsite/article/13127.
The Mcpherson report used the familiar circular reasoning of Zionists and the p.c. left: “To question whether the murder of Stephen Lawrence was a purely racist crime was, in itself, adduced as evidence of racism.” – Racist Murder and Pressure Group Politics, page xix.
This is the same logic used to attempt to censor any discusssion of the Holocaust, or less extreme examples of violence against minorities. It’s the same logic that made it hard to question whether Tawana Brawley, Crystal Magnum, and various other minority pseudo-victims were telling the truth. It’s the logic that led to the prosecution of George Zimmerman. It’s the false idea that white societies like Britain and America are uniquely prone to racial supremacy, and have to spend the rest of eternity apologizing for it. It leads to the idea that the plaintiff, not the defendant, should be given the benefit of the doubt when the plaintiff is black. This would mean abandoning one of the basic principles of Anglo-Saxon law.
On August 26, 2014, professor Alexis Jay released a report into the grooming of hundreds of girls as young as eleven by gangs of men in the English town of Rotherham. The men’s names were over 90% Muslim. It has subsequently emerged that the phenomenon of grooming, rape, and prostitution of non-Muslim girls is
widespread
ignored by the authorities
denied by the establishment for fear of causing racial tensions
Left-liberal enabling of Muslim paedophile rape gangs before the release of Alexis Jay’s report
“This week it also emerged a council researcher attempted to raise the alarm over sex abuse in Rotherham more than a decade ago – but was threatened, told to ‘never, ever’ repeat the allegations, and put on a diversity course… She said: ‘And her other response was to book me on a two-day ethnicity and diversity course to raise my awareness of ethnic issues.’”
Hiding among the few liberals of integrity are other famous lefties who had a role in covering for the rapists: “Ann Cryer said that Ken Livingstone, the former Mayor of London, was among those who had challenged her for speaking about the issue.”
The Guardian back in 2012 – “Practising Muslims certainly aren’t supposed to have sex with children”: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/may/08/asian-sex-gangs-on-street-grooming and “First, we have the white offenders, who typically offend alone. So far, nothing new: the lone white male is the norm for UK child sex offences. Second, however, there are Asian offenders, many of whom are of Pakistani origin. They seem much more likely to offend in groups, lending their abuse a curiously social dimension”.
The BBC reports on the campaing to suppress a documentary about Muslim rape gangs in 2004:
23 Aug – just before Alexis Jay’s report – Police criticised the Times article, saying: “South Yorkshire Police deeply regrets the decision by The Times newspaper to publish an article about an ongoing, complex and highly sensitive investigation into matters of historic child sexual exploitation.”
An important component of the help given by the left to Muslim rapists is its confusion of race and religion. The right-wing English Defence League, on the other hand, carefully make the distinction, criticizing Islam, not people from south Asia. Unite Against Fascism responds by calling this “racist”.
“But as Nazir Afzal, the chief crown prosecutor in charge of sexual violence and himself of Pakistani heritage, put it, “There is no getting away from the fact that there are Pakistani gangs grooming vulnerable girls.””. No shit.
Another slippery character is the head of the children’s charity Dr. Barnado’s. His name is Javed Khan. Watch him squirm when challenged about his failure to prevent his co-religionists raping children: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bscZyOeBpW4.
Afzal and Khan are in positions of authority in the UK in… guarding children from sexual exploitation.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-28963158 – “when we do talk about people coming from a particular ethnic origin, we need to look at the wider statistical context”.
The organization Unite Against Fascism, which helped undermine information about, and opposition to, Muslim child-rape gangs:
“The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry revealed that the police and other institutions are ‘institutionally racist’ and African, Caribbean and Asian people are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system. Therefore it is unlikely that the crimes in Rotherham were not addressed properly due to the social and cultural background of the perpetrators.”
The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry didn’t “reveal” anything – it invented the unanswerable charge “institutional racism”. (See the report “Racist Murder and Pressure Group Politics” [PDF]). This is one of the reasons the police were deterred from investigating the Muslim child-rapists.
Unite Against Fascism calls the EDL’s claims about Muslim sexual exploitation racist myths. These claims are neither racist, nor myths, because Islam is not a race, and the claims are true.
“The EDL’s attempts to spread racist myths about sexual exploitation must be exposed and challenged. They seek to blame one community for society’s problems. The EDL does nothing to protect the victims of sexual violence. Sexual predators and paedophiles exist in all communities, as do their victims.”
In lying about, and attempting to suppress, one of the few organizations to open the lid on the Muslim rape gangs, Unite Against Fascism helped perpetuate the abuse.
It’s not the Nazis, it’s the Nazirs we have to worry about! (See below).
“Yesterday Lord Ahmed, who has lived in Rotherham for most of his life, said it was now up to the ‘mosques and community leaders’ to teach ‘moral and ethical values’ lost to the younger generation.”
This gives the impression that the Muslim community is capable of changing its culture of shame, solidarity and cover-up. Maybe Nazir Ahmed, along with Nazir Afzal and Javed Khan, is another slippery defender of criminals with the same religion as himself. Perhaps Islamic culture privileges solidarity between its members over submission to universal values such as telling the truth. One should certainly be free to investigate this possibility without being charged with “racism”.
“Victims were not targeted because they were white” say the man in charge of the child exploitation wing of the Crown Prosecution Service, Nazir Afzal. Unlike his statement “there is no religious basis for the abuse in Rotherham”, this is technically correct. Non-Muslim girls of Indian origin were targeted too. They were targeted because they are not Muslim. Nazir doesn’t say that. The Guardian helps him: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/03/nazir-afzal-there-is-no-religious-basis-for-the-abuse-in-rotherham
“I’m very clear in that child abuse is not a party-political issue. There have been massive failings everywhere from Oxford to Rochdale and Rotherham to Peterborough. But Ukip want to politicise it.” says MP Simon Danczuk.
That’s not true. If, as Labour MPs have admitted, political correctness was one of the causes of the failure of the authorities to crack down on the Muslim rape gangs, while removing children from UKIP-voting foster parents, it is a very party-political issue.
The BBC is not at all skeptical of the sincerity of the Muslims it interviews:
“In the name of what community cohesion and political correctness? Not in the name of my community,” said Muhbeen Hussain, founder of British Muslim Youth.
“”I’m truly disgusted to see such a report in my home town of Rotherham.
“The fact these guys were predominantly Pakistani heritage men should not be a reason for providing a cloak of invisibility.”
Muhbeen Hussain, founder of the Rotherham Muslim Group: “There is nothing in the Pakistani or Muslim culture that condones such actions…we are asking for prosecutions”…
“I’m a Muslim and if I saw a Muslim person doing something like that then they would not be a Muslim to me.”
Accurate stories of Muslim grooming gangs before August 26, 2014
Andrew Norfolk, Revealed: conspiracy of silence on UK sex gangs, the Times, January 5, 2011:
The EDL clearly explains how the media’s description of the Muslim child-rapists as “Asian” distracts from the role of their religion in encouraging the abuse, and slanders non-Muslim Asians:
Twelve years ago Australian media mentioned ethnicity in relation to rape gangs (Lebanese). The Netherlands tackled the issue (see Easy Meat) http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2002/s607757.htm. The British authorities refused to learn from their experience.
Dan Hodges is right to criticize the denial of the left and powerful Muslims like Javed Khan. But he’s wrong to say it’s about race. The left are circling the wagons because of the rapists’ race. But there is no evidence that their race made them rapists. It’s much more likely that their religion is part of the cause.
This is devastating. Well done Channel Four. But: “Professor Jay’s report concedes that concerns expressed by several councillors that raising the issue of ethnicity could be “giving oxygen” to racist perspectives that could attract extremist political groups and threaten community cohesion were valid to some extent, given the targeting of Rotherham by groups such as the English Defence League.” So “to some extent”, professor Jay thinks, it was understandable for the authorities to allow Pakistanis to rape minors, so as not to help the people protesting against them. To what extent, she doesn’t specify.
The authorities covered up for murder as well as rape: “the council’s safeguarding children board tried to avoid making public a serious case review into the death of 17-year-old Laura Wilson”.
Ukip today accused Labour of “sacrificing the innocence of children” to the “altar of multiculturalism” as it attempted to politicise the Rotherham sex abuse scandal and win votes from disillusioned Northern Labour voters. In an outspoken and stinging attack Ukip’s Yorkshire MEP Jane Collins claimed political correctness had allowed young white girls to be “gang-raped, beaten and threatened at gunpoint” by Muslim men in the town. Ms Collins, who will contest Rotherham at the general election, said Labour politicians who had run the town for years “were morally corrupt and discredited” and dubbed them “liberal lefties to afraid to act through their own political selfishness”.
Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party has become so submissive to Jewish power that one of its councils canceled a charity bike ride to raise money for sports equipment for children in Gaza.
Because Labour has adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of ‘anti-semitism’, it couldn’t allow speakers who might describe Israel as comparable to apartheid South Africa, or being based on ethnic cleansing.
It’s a dreadful thing when an over-scrupulous interpretation of the IHRA definition of antisemitism is used behind closed doors to prevent awareness raising of the situation in Palestine and the need for humanitarian support
said a spokesperson for the charity which organises the annual ride. The whole point of the IHRA’s definition of anti-semitism is to criminalise opposition to Jewish child-killers, so this statement is rather naive.
Incidentally, Tower Hamlets is a place American right-wingers, including the president, say is overrun with Islamists. That fear appears to be misplaced.
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.
“There is just one point where I have encountered a difficulty” – Russell to Frege, 1902.
I introduced a talk by Gilad Atzmon, and organised a reading group to discuss his first book, “The Wandering Who?”, about Jewish identity politics. We had many criticisms of it.
The new book is much broader, and better. I have only one major criticism. This article is about that criticism, but though as a result it’s mostly negative, I actually think this book is a major contribution to understanding the times we live in. It explains Donald Trump, Brexit, the left, identity politics, political correctness, and especially, US support for Jewish supremacy in the Middle East. It is undogmatic, finding inputs from a wide range of sources. Atzmon even manages to get something useful out of the book “The Bell Curve” while rejecting its central premise, IQ. I mostly agreed with much of “Being in Time”.
But chapter four, “United Against Unity”, woke me up with a jolt.
But what about Hammed, a metal worker from Birmingham? Hammed identifies as a ‘Muslim’ – can he join a Left demonstration against the War in Syria? It’s a good question and the answer is not immediately obvious because it’s no secret that many of those who subscribe to ‘progressive’ and ‘liberal’ ideologies and especially activists, are rather troubled by religion in general and Islam in particular.
You could have fooled me. In 2003, I attended a large Palestine solidarity demonstration in London. There was a small group of Muslim extremists shouting “Hamas! Hamas! Jews to the gas!”. They were tolerated. Far milder expressions of white identity are violently excluded from left-wing events.
Shortly after criticising political correctness, Atzmon writes
What about Laura? She’s a Muslim convert who often hides her face behind a veil. Does she feel comfortable in ‘progressive’ or liberal gatherings? Not really.
“Feel comfortable”? This is political correctness!
The progressive left on both sides of the Atlantic is more than tolerant of Islam, the most regressive section of Western society.
The American women’s march against Donald Trump selected Muslim misogynist Linda Sarsour as one of its organisers,
and German feminists applauded Islam too.
Atzmon is right to say that a British patriot would not be welcome at an anti-war protest. But he’s completely wrong about the left and Islam.
One of the reasons Muslim men were allowed to get away with raping hundreds of underage girls for decades in Britain is that most of them live under Labour Party-controlled councils. Paralysed by political correctness, sending social workers who noticed that it was primarily “Asians” trafficking the girls, on “diversity” courses, they ignored the problem, or suppressed attempts to expose it, for fear of being called “racist”.
When Labour’s left-wing leader Jeremy Corbyn spoke in the House of Commons about the Grenfell tower disaster, he rightly pointed to Orgreave and Hillsborough as examples of police malfeasance, then he mentioned the Rotherham child-trafficking scandal as another example, again rightly. But he didn’t mention the other major factor: the overwhelming overrepresentation of Muslims among Rotherham’s child traffickers, and the influence of political correctness on allowing them to rape children. Instead, he went out of his way to make a gratuitous remark about Muslims breaking from prayers to help their neighbours in the Grenfell fire:
A more extreme example of the leftist attitude to Islam is the Socialist Workers Party arguing against Islamic terrorism – on the grounds that it wouldn’t work: Socialists Stand With The Oppressed.
Atzmon’s book is pretty good about the connection between identity politics and Zionist power in the West. He’s also right about the overrepresentation of self-identified Jews in the origins of the most sophisticated variants of movements designed to take advantage of Western self-doubt – Franz Boas’s anthropology, Theodor Adorno’s psychology and sociology (the Frankfurt school), Freud, postmodernism and the “anti-racist” anti-science of Stephen Jay Gould. But it’s not only Jewish activists who exploit this loophole. Political correctness also undermines the West’s defence against the influence of Islam.
Examples
Page 48: “Jewish ethnocentrism and even Jewish racial exclusivity is fully accepted, while other forms of ethnocentrism are bluntly rejected.”
In fact, the left tolerates prejudice from black activists, usually against white people. “African-American Studies” is positive, whereas the study of “Whiteness” is invariably negative. One can easily find dozens of examples by checking out the sites “The College Fix”, “Campus Reform”, Sargon of Akkad’s videos on Youtube, or reading up on the 2006 Duke University Lacrosse rape case. I suspect that’s the main reason for the left’s support for the socially conservative ideology of Islam – most of its adherents have dark skin.
Page 81: Atzmon claims that the Guardian does not mind offending ‘Islamists’, on the basis of its broadcast of one televised debate between two Zionist Jews.
He’s right about the paper’s hostility to the white workers. When hackette Zoe Williams went to Rotherham to investigate Pakistani taxi drivers raping underage white girls, she dismissed the mostly-white English Defence League as “racist”, instead asking for the opinions of… Pakistani taxi drivers. Atzmon doesn’t realise that this is normal. Muslims usually get gold in the Oppression Olympics. Here are six examples of the Guardian’s Islamophilia:
Page 125 – ID Politics – the belief that the personal is political unless you are Muslim or white. This reiterates the idea that the left encourages identity politics for all except Muslims and white Europeans. He’s fifty percent right.
Page 129 – Atzmon argues that Islam and Christianity are similar, but Judaism is different, because it’s based on “an obedience regulatory system”, in which “God-loving is not voluntary”. And again on page 197. He argues that Christianity and Islam are universalist, as opposed to the sectarian attitudes of Judaism – “the chosen few”. He’s right about Judaism, and the myth of “Judaeo-Christian”, but he substitutes the equally false “Islamo-Christian”. The only way Islam is universalist is that anyone can join it, and many had no choice. If you haven’t signed up, or especially if you leave it, it’s not a bit universal. Its God is close to the vengeful monster of the Old Testament, not at all like his son, the pacifist who founded Christianity. “Judaeo-Islamic” is a more accurate neologism.
Social Justice has taken over, not just academic humanities departments, but large sections of the media, and, amazingly, the most important corporations in the world, such as Apple and Google. “Cultural Marxism” is not a paranoid right-wing conspiracy theory.
It’s my contention than Zionists use the same mechanisms as SJWs to manipulate Western societies to do things which are opposed to the interests of most of their inhabitants, rich and poor. Like professors of “African-American Studies”, they use false, or meaningless, allegations of racial prejudice to take advantage of our morality. We can kill both of these birds with one stone.
Support for Israel is a result of political correctness, the expression of a weakness in white European people and societies. The immigration of millions of Muslims, among them many who don’t accept Western values, is another. Atzmon dismisses concern about Islam altogether. But read “Being and Time”. Apart from its blind spot regarding ‘Islamists’, it’s damn good.
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.
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.
“The fact that hundreds of years later children still celebrate foiling the ‘Gunpowder Plot’ by burning effigies of Guy Fawkes on a bonfire proves how we are conditioned from childhood to dehumanise enemies of the Government” – Laura Stuart
Laura Stuart is a convert to Islam who was arrested [i] on a “fishing expedition” last year on Guy Fawkes’ day, November 5. There was no evidence – three months later, the case was dropped. She is active in the Palestine solidarity movement. Perhaps this is why she was harassed by the police.
Several left-wing activists, including the son of Pink Floyd guitarist David Gilmour, who were imprisoned for participating in various protests, were interviewed by the Guardian [ii].
Charlie Gilmour
It is instructive to contrast their experience, and Stuart’s, with that of Tommy Robinson, Britain’s second best-known critic of Islam, after Richard Dawkins. His recent biography is entitled Enemy of the State [iii].
Stuart was treated relatively well. She wasn’t threatened – the police just used standard “hard cop, soft cop” techniques to try to get her to talk, and examined the contents of her computer and mobile phone. It’s worth reading her account if you don’t have any experience with the police.
Charlie Gilmour was pleasantly surprised to be looked after by older inmates, most of whom admired his participation in a protest/riot outside No. 10 Downing St..
When Jonnie Marbles was seen on TV throwing a pie in the face of Rupert Murdoch, the inmates at HMP Wandsworth cheered. When he was sent to the same prison, “he was treated like a minor celebrity”.
20-year-old Chelsea Stafford had it worse. She was evicted from a squat in Liverpool and sent to HMP Styal, where the screws refused to respect her vegan diet. She slashed herself with a knife – a common female reaction to prison.
But on the whole, because left-wing activists have a lot of support from outside, the Guardian article says “Prison wasn’t exactly a cakewalk, but it’s clear that these activists can enjoy a privileged status within the system.”
This was not Tommy Robinson’s experience. He too had lots of support from outside – from his organisation the English Defence League, and numerous other people concerned about “Islamification”. But, if there’s any truth in his biography, he was treated much worse than the Muslim and left-wing activists listed above.
Although the government has helped protect him and his family against murderous assaults by Muslims by installing “panic buttons”, in their home, etc., it has also deliberately put him in danger many times.
Robinson usually does his prison time in solitary, to avoid Muslim gangs, but sometimes, the authorities force him into the proximity of people who want to kill him. In 2012, warders locked him in a cell with three violent Muslims, who kicked him unconscious.
Tommy Robinson
Robinson has never been convicted of a violent offence. In July 2015, he was recalled to prison for lending money to someone who exaggerated their earnings on a mortgage application. Despite knowing that Muslim extremists wanted him killed, the authorities put him on a wing two cells away from a Somali murderer serving 28 years. He offered money to anyone who would pour boiling water mixed with sugar over Robinson’s head. The sugar would make it stick, and cause permanent damage. Robinson pre-emptively attacked the guy, and ended up being charged for this act of self-defence.
The aim of the authorities’ collusion with Muslim extremists is to silence criticism of Islam, as Robinson explains a recent Rubin Report interview [iv]. Part of his bail conditions, for a non-political, white-collar crime, included not being involved in politics. Frequently, when he is about to speak to a large audience, e.g. the Oxford Union, he gets recalled to prison. The government also made an amateurish attempt to turn him into a “grass”, thinking he could give them information about violent right-wing extremists. However, as he explains, one of his most onerous political activities has been keeping such extremists at arm’s length, and out of the EDL.
Why would the state treat a critic of Islam much worse than its defenders? The contrast between the treatment of Stuart and the treatment of Robinson undermines the notion that the British state is “Islamophobic”. The difference between his experience and that of Gilmour and comrades leads to questioning why the “capitalist state” would treat anti-capitalists much better than someone campaigning against Muslim rape gangs [v].
At the time of writing, Robinson is still in danger of being put back in prison with Muslims who want to murder him. There is a fund for his legal defence [vi].
Ken Livingstone under siege, after accurately commenting on Nazi/Zionist co-operation
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.
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. (Seemyarticles).
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 9/11iv, 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
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.
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.
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.
the jay report 