Category: uk

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.

---

An article on Counterpunch ⁱ, says that Shlomo Sand, the Israeli historian who produced evidence that most Jews have no ancestors who lived in Palestine, has gone to ground. Another ⁱⁱ,  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.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/feb/01/legacy-of-grandmas-war

“German discussion of their own suffering has also been taboo. The fear that to acknowledge it would appear sympathetic to the Nazi cause”.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24626-inside-the-minds-of-the-jfk-conspiracy-theorists.html

To believe that the US government planned or deliberately allowed the 9/11 attacks, you’d have to posit that President Bush intentionally sacrificed 3,000 Americans. To believe that explosives, not planes, brought down the buildings, you’d have to imagine an operation large enough to plant the devices without anyone getting caught. To insist that the truth remains hidden, you’d have to assume that everyone who has reviewed the attacks and the events leading up to them – the CIA, the Justice Department, the Federal Aviation Administration, the North American Aerospace Defense Command, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, scientific organisations, peer-reviewed journals, news organisations, the airlines, and local law enforcement agencies in three states – was incompetent, deceived or part of the cover-up.

Note this at the top of the article:

• For similar stories, visit the Mental Health Topic Guide

The biggest mistake in this article is using the term “conspiracy theorists” for 9/11 truthers. As the truthers point out, ad nauseam, the official story of September 11th, 2001, is a conspiracy theory. But “9/11 truth” isn’t a theory at all. It’s not subject to falsification. If the authorities could do that, they can do anything, and cover it up. This means that any evidence against the 9/11 truth “theory” can be explained away by the “theory” itself. It is self-insulating against disconfirmation.

I promote Gilad Atzmon’s ideas and recently helped organize a reading group followed by a talk by him in Portland. However, I don’t agree with everything he says.

His recent article “We better move on” makes good points. He reiterates many of his insights into identity politics, links the failure of the Palestine solidarity movement to its domination by “anti-Zionist Jews”, etc..

It’s also funny. He’s good at taking the piss.

John Smith, an English bus driver from Liverpool is proud to be English and ‘as an Englishman’ he opposes the war because John actually believes that peace is patriotic. Can he join an anti-war protest and, while he’s at it, carry a Union Jack to demonstrations? I leave the answer to you.

Tony is a ‘Jewish Socialist’ – certainly not religious but an ethnic Jew who identifies ‘as a Jew’ racially and ethnically. And by the way, Tony also operates politically within Jews-only anti-Zionist groups. Now Tony is hugely welcome at most Left and progressive gathering. But can the same be said for Franz who identifies as an ‘Aryan socialist’? Again, I leave the answer to you.

Gilad points to some of the inconsistencies of the left  – you can be a Jewish socialist but not a self identified white socialist. But he’s wrong to accuse the left of excluding Muslims.

Left-wing kowtowing to Islamic reactionaries goes back to the Baku conference of 1920.

Since then, there have been numerous marriages of convenience between left-wing progressive intellectuals and reactionary Muslim godbotherers.

Britain’s largest left-wing party, the SWP, has been in an alliance with Muslims for ages. it was the basis of the Respect coalition, which succeeded in electing a leftist politician for the first time since the sixties.  These leftists join forces with Koran literalists to police the morals of London East Enders, and turn a blind eye to homophobic violence and the exploitation of girls. Richard Seymour’s “Lenin’s Tomb” blog is as fond of making excuses for the worst aspects of islam as it is of making inaccurate attacks on Gilad Atzmon. Both errors are products of political correctness.

Any attempt to question this opportunist pro-Islamic policy is dismissed as ‘racism’. It uses the same p.c. techniques to defend its alliance with Islamic reaction as the Jewish left does to weaken Palestine solidarity.

Muslims don’t necessarily reciprocate the left’s support. Lynne Stewart, a leftist lawyer who defended Islamic murderers, was recently released from prison in the USA. As Counterpunch pointed out: “Some Muslims may quietly admit that Lynne was their champion during the 1990s; yet they remained silent and few US Muslims joined the long, hard campaign to free her. Note: I have yet to see any announcement from a US Muslim organization welcoming Stewart’s release.)”.

No, the left generally supports Muslims. But Islam, like any religion, is infinitely opportunist. To genuine Muslims, their leftist supporters are unbelievers. Logically, their attitude toward secular leftists must be analogous to the Bolsheviks’ attitude to moderate socialists: they regard them as useful idiots. The “9/11 Truth Movement”, which tries to defend Muslim terrorists by claiming their attacks are really carried out by Western governments, is perhaps less useful, but no less idiotic.

Arguing that the Western countries are the biggest terrorists, and that Islamic terror is to some extent a reaction to this, is a completely different argument to the view of the truthers, that Western governments actually carry out the Islamic extremist war crimes. Drone attacks by the US-led coalition on wedding parties in Afghanistan is no excuse for Muslims trying to blow up transatlantic airliners, but it is a major part of the explanation of Islamic hate and violence.

Yes, the West does far more damage to Muslim countries than the other way round. But this is no excuse for advocating even more tolerance of religion.

Before world war two, Tottenham, in north London, was disproportionately Jewish. It is a poor area. Since the war, Jews tended to move upward, and black and Asian immigrants took their place. It also has a football team.

At one time, fans tried to put black (or French, or Argentinian) players in rival teams off their game by chanting racist insults. More recently, some fans have chanted anti-racistinsults at players who have been charged with racism. It’s all about doing whatever you can to hinder the other team. It’s not about racism; it’s about winning.

But the football authorities cannot see it like that. A black footballer is an employee, and is as entitled to protection from abusive customers as an employee of a bank. So taking out civil, not criminal, proceedings, against abusive fans is part of clubs’ obligations to their employees. It is reasonable to bar fans who chant offensive slurs at black players from attending games.

Shouting the n-word at French-African footballer Thierry Henry is clearly grounds for exclusion. But what about calling him a ‘frog’? I don’t think so. It’s all about history. Britain hasn’t oppressed the frogs for centuries, and besides, it was a fair fight.

OK, so what about ‘anti-semitic’ chanting toward Tottenham Hotspur fans? This has been going on for decades, and nobody took it seriously. Tottenham fans call themselves ‘yids’, and wave Israeli flags. Even when rival fans sing songs about Auschwitz and make a hissing sound like gas, no reasonable Tottenham fan complains. Whereas Afro-Caribbeans and South Asians have sometimes been victims of racial violence in England during the last fifty years, this is not true of Jews. West Ham fans are not about to put anyone in a gas chamber. It’s all a – admittedly, extremely tasteless – joke.

But political correctness knows no limits, as the history of the Soviet Union shows. Once you let a bunch of humourless bureaucrats tell you what you can say, they will try to extend their power. Following the suspension of Chelsea captain John Terry for an unproven allegation of racist language, Britain’s black lawyers’ association and other ‘anti-racist’ organizations decided to see how far they could push it. Supported by the Community Security Trust, they demanded that the authorities clamp down on ‘anti-semitism’. They didn’t say anything about the Israeli flags.

Following last Sunday’s game at Tottenham, several West Ham fans have been charged with thought crimes for participating in the traditional banter.

The vast majority of Tottenham fans aren’t the slightest bit offended by songs suggesting that Hitler is going to gas us. We revel in it. Winning is all that matters.