Rotherham Grooming Case and Diversity Training

In Rotherham over 1400 girls as young as 11 fell victim to paedophile gangs from the Pakistani community in that town between 1997 and 2010. It was know amongst the Labour-run authorities that this was going on and nothing was done, according to a report by Alexis Jay.

A researcher seconded from the home office produced a report on the case in 2002. She interviewed about 270 girls and their families and produced horrific reports such as girls being covered in petrol and threatened with being set alight if they resisted rape. It turned out that some the girls, some of them in care, were groomed and assaulted under the nose of the authorities charged with caring for them. It was also reported that in town where 8% of the population were of that ethnicity, that nearly all the perpetrators of the scandal were Pakistani. This is a striking pattern that you would think would be impossible to ignore but the authorities did. They pressured the researcher to change her report and leave out that pattern but she refused and she was threatened with the sack and sent to diversity training.

Why did social workers send the researcher to diversity training rather than publish her findings? Well, first of all, they did not want the ethnicity of the vast majority of the perpetrators to be released. The reason for this is that the social workers, and their bosses, had undergone brainwashing, sorry, ‘diversity training’. How did this lead to the ridiculous reaction to the scandal?

Fear of Being Called Racist.

This fear paralyses to many people within authority and therefore increases the chances of stupidity within the authorities. The word ‘racist’ is used to control white people since the diversity fanatics consider insolent white people to be a threat to the harmonic and vibrant society that the proponents of multiculturalist argue for it. Diversity training is used to instil this fantasy within the cogs of the state machine.

This case would imply that Diversity Training can instil a condition in the mentality that can stifle logical thinking and create an astounding ability to ignore what is in front of you. In order to make it a more effective method of control the common usage of the word ‘racism’ is very broad in definition. But beyond all this the word does have a narrower definition in reality – a belief in the inherent superiority of one race over another. So are we to believe that if anyone notices the striking pattern of the perpetrators then they are secretly a white supremacist? In the name of racial equality we should allow Muslim gangs to emulate their prophet and take young non-Muslim girls as sex slaves? Only sick mind would consider this – therefore Diversity Training instils a sickness in the mind as well as shrinking it.

Maintain the Delusion that Multiculturalism can Create a Harmonious Country

The social workers clearly came to the conclusion that anyone who does not know to ignore wrongdoing by anyone who happens to be of a ethnic minority needs to Diversity Training in order to loosen their grasp on reality. After all, if you are immersed in reality it is more difficult to shut it out.

One way that you can lose yourself into fantasy is to delve entirely into theory. More specifically Marxist-derived theory. You would not be explicitly told that multiculturalism and Diversity is ultimately derived from Marxism, specifically Gramscian and Frankfurt School varieties, because since the Soviet Union and the crimes committed by the state within it it is more difficult to do so effectively. If it is instead draped in a benevolent cover, for example, to promote peace and harmony and defending ‘vulnerable groups’, then soft-headed people can be brought round and those whom disagree with the madness would implicitly have their characters slandered. This is another reason for diversity training; they wanted the researcher to ‘learn’ that she would harm a ‘vulnerable group’ if she proceeded with the truth. Clearly then the social workers considered the 11 year old white girls being drugged and abused to be less vulnerable than their abusers.

Priorities are determined by ideology. Children’s services intervened in Rotherham when it found out that adoptive parents supported UKIP, and so took their children away because they would not teach the children to support multiculturalism. So supporting UKIP is considered to be a greater crime than raping under-age girls.

They were afraid that the local white population may stop passively accepting the ideological relegation of their interests since it was considered necessary to stop people voting BNP. Diversity training clearly teaches that it is good to allow  sexual slavery in order to keep votes out of the hands of a party that may mobilise the local population to react against their subjugation in the name of an ideology designed to create an indigenous minority and  replace the indigenous cultural identity with a more fashionable one. Without Diversity training there is the risk that the authorities may act in the interests of local people.

Adherence to Diversity can Boost the Career Prospects of a Local Authority Worker

It was claimed that there was pressure coming from the management so clearly it is in the interests of individuals further up the hierarchy. Management in local authorities are likely to be fully signed up members of the Diversity agenda  because it is through adherence to Diversity that one climbs the career ladder. Sending someone to Diversity Training can look good for a manager.

Enforcing the Diversity ideology can look good for social workers at the bottom in their ambitions to achieve higher office and salaries. This is also the case for the police too. Knowing when to ignore the law can be learnt in Diversity Training. According to Jay’s report one girl, well under 16, was abused and the police officer in question claimed that it was consensual – despite legally a person under 16 cannot legally give consent so the girl was the victim of statutory rape by the much older abuser. Diversity teaches you what to ignore of you want to improve your career prospects (and salary).

This is all designed to create an institutionalised means in which the Diversity agenda is furthered and enforced. The researchers data for the report was stolen from her office in the council’s outreach centre for vulnerable youngsters. The council denies it but it is suspicious that the council had access, there was no break-in and only the data was stolen. Many local authorities, particularly those run by Labour, seem to model themselves on East Germany. Tactics are often used by ideologically -driven authorities. People can be driven by fear in such a climate hence why people may be so keen to be seen to be enforcing Diversity.

Conclusion 

We live in a country that claims to be democratic but the structure of the state is saturated by an ideology that is put before the interests of ordinary people. In order to prosper it is considered necessary to be seen to enforce the ideology; people who cannot resist this may want others to succumb to so that their own weakness and lack of independent mindedness can be hidden behind an apparent belief in a principle.

This is why Diversity training has been used against thoughts can contradict the intentions of the Diversity agenda. It is assumed by those who are immersed within the alternative reality that Diversity inhabits that anyone who diverges from it has a defect that needs correcting. Because this ideology is all-encompassing a scandal as happened in Rotherham (and no doubt elsewhere) is considered an inconvenient detail that needs to be hidden.

White Privilege Theory- Profound Insight or Dangerous Nonsense?

White Privilege stems from the Critical Race Theory – itself a derivative of Critical Theory. This is Marxist theory invented by the Frankfurt School, a research institute. This institute centred around a collection of researchers and theorists whom sought to critique contemporary capitalist system. This extended into areas beyond economics including culture and race. They therefore erroneously conflate culture within the West with the capitalist system, or at least that the former stems from the latter. This article will analyse where White Privilege Theory is wrong and why it is not only subversive to capitalism.

The theory on race centres around the idea that the system within the West, and globally by extension, advantages white people based on skin colour – and conversely, disadvantage those who are not white. As to how this could be the case will be analysed and it will be demonstrated as to how this idea is wrong.

Minority Experiences

Proponents of this theory describe a romantic picture in which minority groups go through a unique and noble experience of suffering and struggle – regardless of how much wealth and success they enjoy, presumably. This experience is the sole property of minorities that we white people cannot understand, but we need to try in order to feel sufficiently guilty. Harvard University in the United States has put together a course called Know Your Privilege 101. This is designed to instil a sense of guilt into white, male students before they are set free in the world to maintain white privilege whilst instilling a sense of grievance in minority students to drive them as they battle their way through obstacles of disadvantage. This must be discouraging if you are white because you could come from a poor background, scrape together money in part-time jobs, work hard to earn a degree – to then be told that you do not deserve it.

If you are white but come from a working-class background it is strange to be told that despite your actual circumstances far removed from power and wealth, your skin colour gives you an advantage and that you are privileged. Of course, you are privileged compared to someone growing up in a Brazilian favela, for example, but this would seem to be relative based on locations and not race or skin colour.

A student in the United States wrote an essay regarding his experience of guilt-instilling on the indoctrinating course. He had to do some research on his background in order to find out that how was privileged for this assignment. Noticed that it is assumed that he was privileged beforehand- no-one putting the course together would have known about his life history, but since he was white he must be privileged regardless of socio-economic background.

The response from an academic at Harvard demonstrates the intransigent and arrogant attitude that is typical of White Privilege Theory advocates. Scanlan says,

Tal Fortgang [the student in question] has a few more years to learn to look for his own privilege and learn solidarity with people who don’t enjoy it. I hope Princeton can teach it to him.

(Source: http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/ conversation/2014/05/12/check-your-history)

In other words, if you are white and do not feel guilty of your background then you are ignorant or defective in some way.

Working class white males occupy a strange position in the Marxist world-view since we are not wealthy but are considered a part of a demographic that has an identity that says that we are- despite that most white males are not wealthy.

Yet even if we are not aware of privilege we apparently benefit from it. You can be stuck within an overwhelming depth of self-loathing, and yet if you are white you are benefiting from racism in some way. If you cannot see how you are benefitting from it then that is because this privilege is invisible or you are intellectually defective. If you are white, male, aware of your privilege and do not feel guilty then you are just a horrible person.

White people apparently have a greater extent of freedom than non-white people. I cannot attest with the experience in the US since I am from the UK but a (non-white) can openly call for violence, and if he got arrested it would be through great reluctance, but a white person can be prosecuted for criticising immigration policy. A black person could be commended for his prejudice when he proclaims that there are too many white people for his liking but if it happened the other way round the offending individual would be censured or arrested before they knew what was happening. If white people have greater freedom, then it is not immediately apparent where there are greater restrictions on free speech and political activity for non-whites than whites. Those with least freedom seems to be those white people whom have little wealth or little power. An economic divide within the white population, not a common interest that seeks to disadvantage non-whites.

Statistics that point to greater average wealth of white people could be accounted for by the fact that those countries with higher incomes and living standards tend to be indigenous white or otherwise white majorities. Many non-whites also have higher living standards if they live in these countries than they do in other countries. WPT would therefore assert that if you are a white male you should be penalised for this statistic, that is actually no fault of your own. Your achievements would apparently be undeserved due to the failure of other societies, and the success of your ancestors and the ability of successive generations to maintain build on what went before. This would mean that we ought to make it up to non-whites in our own country, even if they are well-off, because of incompetent governance in other parts of the world that maintains an overall statistic.

WPT holds the success of North America and Europe to be permanent if not intentionally undermined. The fact is that various parts of the world outside of Africa had been most successful at times throughout history. This has been the case for Europe over last few centuries. Before then it was in Asia; relatively Asia is growing stronger again. WPT is fundamentally Euro- and white-centric. It has placed white people at the top because over the last few centuries the most successful countries and societies have been in areas of the world where white people are in the majority. This does not give white people an in-built advantage based on our skin colour. Rather than basing the theory on history as it actually happened, WPT bases it on a fictitious Marxist one where history proceeds in stages eventually culminating in an unsustainably oppressive dichotomy which then collapses. The oppressor would fall and then disappear creating an equal society. If consistent with WPT, the white race would fall and would disappear (whether through genocide or assimilation, not sure) and an equal non-white society would happen (somehow inequalities between non-white peoples would vanish, too).

Is Race A Social Construct?

Race is considered to be absolutely central to everything. If you are not aware of race you are therefore perpetuating privilege – so therefore race must be at the forefront of our minds. What they mean is that the thought of white privilege must continually eat away at your conscience. Even if you’re white, male and poor you must feel for that underprivileged middle class black or Asian family down the road. Statistically, as a white male you are better off even if you are not individually. Even if that non-white family appear to be well off it is actually the case that they would have been even better off if wasn’t for your privilege.

Many of the bankers and rich industrialists within the Western world are white – reflecting the demographic reality within Europe and North America. Many bankers and rich industrialists outside of Europe and North America tend to be non-white, reflecting the demographics there. The former is attested as evidence of white privilege whereas the latter is ignored because it does not back this theory. Multinational investment in Africa is labelled neo-colonialism, and evidence of white privilege, if it is by a Western corporation- ignored if it is an Arab company or the Chinese government since this would not support the WPT. According to WPT the privilege of a wealthy, white, male is also the privilege of a working class white, male. This is not considered the case when attention is shifted purely onto a economic means when the former and latter are on opposite sides of a Marxist dichotomy – our interests are only one when it considered from a race perspective. So reality shifts according to what particular Marxist pre-occupation is the immediate object of focus.

WPT asserts that race is a ‘social construct’, thereby implying artificiality.  It asserts that white people invented race in order to entrench power – as to why this particular distinction would emerge or this particular section of the population had power to begin with is unclear. This begs the question as to who ‘invented’ this distinction and from what. The truth that the distinction between white and non-white is nothing to do with power because it is a conceptualisation of actual biological and genetic distinction of the indigenous population of Europe- someone of European descent could be identified from their genome. Non-white would be someone who is not an indigenous European because they are indigenous to another part of the world such as Asia and Africa. So there is not an artificial distinction but a natural one.

If race is natural then why would WPT say that it is artificial? Because the important thing for WPT is not what is true but what can be achieved through someone believing something to be true. For example, if we believe that race is an invention then we will act as if it is, and cultural identities within Europe and any Western area will lose their ethnic basis. So rather than us having an ancestral attachment to our culture we would instead possess no special attachment to our cultural heritage and would simply accept an alternative being imposed on us via multiculturalism and mass immigration because no one culture is preferable to another. Distinctive nation-states would vanish.

WPT ignores the fact that populations have distinctive physical features in different parts of the world, and that indigenous populations tend to have features that suit them to that part of the world thereby suggesting that evolution has been acting on us since the appearance of ‘modern man’ over 100,000 years ago. Light skin is more suited to low-light levels since light-skin needs less sunlight to produce vitamin D that can ward off certain illnesses, while dark skin offer protection against strong sunlight and the Tibetans can survive at altitudes that would kill other peoples since they have undergone evolutionary adaption over the last 3,000 years, for example. So the distinction between white and non-white would appear to be the culmination of evolution and not via a conspiracy by an elite to entrench power.

Doesn’t Meritocracy Offer Equal Opportunity?

WPT theory claims that the concept of meritocracy is designed to disguise white privilege. They claim that this concept is socially constructed (according to WPT most things are ‘socially constructed’ since this provides a get out clause within difficult debates so they can claim that any cogent argument against them is a symptom of this hegemony). So apparently disadvantaged people would think that they were given a fair chance of the success and only failed because they had less ability then another candidate, when in fact a white male was given a job by a white male because they were both white males. The problem with this is that this theory would come into difficulty when a non-white intentionally chooses a non-white for a job over a white male based on race. In Tower Hamlets, a London local authority, has a cabinet entirely chosen from the Bangladeshi community by its Bangladeshi leader. No white male privileging a fellow white male here.

This theory also fails to explain why  ‘positive discrimination’ would be allowed to happen if this was a white male driven society for white males because ‘positive’ discrimination seeks to provide non-white males with advantageous access to jobs or education, although a WPT advocate would wield their get-out clause and disingenuously argue that you were under a false consciousness since it is claimed that if you cannot see it then it is invisible – a WPT advocate can apparently see what is invisible to the rest of us. As to why they have this special vision and no-one else does is unclear.  Basically it is a case of ‘ it is invisible, but trust me, it is there’. The case for ‘positive’ discrimination presuppose the existence of privilege based on being white and male.

So All Minorities Would Fail, Then?

No, they wouldn’t and necessarily don’t. To support the theory that meritocracy is a con argument they point to unequal outcomes between different racial groups. Misleadingly they selectively compare certain racial groups that statistically do worse than white people in certain areas such education and income – and ignore those that statistically do better such as East Asians and Indians, in Britain, at least- than the white population.

In Britain white working class boys are doing worse than any other group apart from travellers and gypsies. So would a system that intends to maintain white privilege really allow all these white males to languish academically? If the system is constructed to ensure that white males prosper and non-whites do not, then it has clearly failed.

The argument also assumes that if opportunities were equal, however you define that, then every racial group would do equally as well as measured by outcome. The presumption is that every racial group has identical underlying abilities since we are the same under the skin and skin colour has no bearing on ability; but as has been established differences are more than skin deep and penetrate to the genetic level- genetics account for a significant percentage of intelligence and other abilities according to research on twins.  However, different underlying abilities could account for differences in outcome as well as culture. Certain groups do consistently worse educationally while other peoples possess a greater emphasis on academic success within their cultural backgrounds then others. These two factors can both be true for others. A system that is loaded against non-whites seems to be an unsatisfactory explanation for different outcomes.

It has been argued that the theory could become self-perpetuating if it leads to non-whites doing worse in life if they believe that there are insurmountable hurdles to overcome. So WPT could lead to non-white people doing worse than the white average. But with WPT us ‘privileged’ white, males would hate ourselves and offer the poor struggling non-white groups a leg-up.

Conclusion

WPT creates an misleading dichotomy that does not explain or would solve anything. It proclaims certain people to be privileged when they are not and proclaims victimhood where there is none and that can be an excuse for failure, or a disincentive to try. It can create resentment towards white people by instilling a burning grievance within other groups.

References

legalinsurrection.com/2014/05

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/05/13

Delgado, R (ed), Critical Race Theory

Lund, C, White Privilege and Racism: Perceptions and Actions

Preskar, G., White Privilege and Wheel of Oppression: The Hoax of the Century

Tyson, L, Critical Theory Today: A User-Friendly Guide, 2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJpvFnL6dOK

 

Will IPSO Really Guarantee a Free Press?

 The debate over the independence of the press under IPSO, or the Independent Press Standards Organisation, and the Royal Charter is irrelevant in the big picture- what is important is the narrowing of debate within the mainstream that excludes the majority of ordinary people who’s view are considered ‘politically correct’.

A new chairman of Ipso has been announced- a soon-to-retire High Court judge called Sir Alan Moses. He has been touted as an effective overseer of the press because he was to reputed to have been thrown some newspapers across a room once in reaction to press coverage of a story. Ipso replaced the Press Complaints Commission which was considered ineffective after the fall-out from the scandal at the now defunct News of the World which was accused of hacking into mobiles for stories.

Ipso will be approved by the majority of the national and regional press and will be separate from the government approved Royal Charter, a more explicit attempt by the government to gain control of the press – so therefore they will undoubtedly resort to an indirect way. This begs the question as to whether IPSO is it.

It has been argued that Moses will be fiercely independent because he has previously been described as ‘outspoken’ – but not necessarily, of course, interested within a free press. If he want s to go on a one-man crusade against the press then he would do the government’s work over the press – and it can of course reward him handsomely for curtailing the press to the politicians’ liking. It is possible that it would be true, but than with the record of ‘independent’ regulators of anything within the establishment is poor. Remember the recent Maria Miller expenses scandal. The independent regulator overseeing MPs expenses was over-ruled by the Standards and Privileges Committee. The independent regulator originally ordered Miller to repay all the £45,000 that it calculated she owed the taxpayer – her fellow MPs on the S & P Committee got this reduced to about £ 5,000.

This avoided a dangerous precedent for the MPs on the S& P Committee whom, according to sources such as Private Eye may have skeletons in their own closet and for whom action against themselves is a hypothetical possibility in the future. This begs the question as to what clauses are contained within the framework and whether there are degrees of protection of politicians from democracy within it. Politicians, despite all the rhetoric, look after themselves and will close ranks if scrutinised. The government has said that they will accept IPSO. However, if IPSO would is acceptable to the political class then it has not hurt their interests hard enough. This means that too much power still resides within the political class and not within the electorate.

So are we meant to believe that IPSO will actually be independent of the Establishment? A truly independent press, and also including small outlets that could hold the government and larger press outlets to account, would lead to an almost democratic level of freedom. Such a press would leave politicians in danger of having more of their lies exposed. Their attempts to hide the expenses scandal several years ago, and Miller’s recent attack on the press scrutinising her accounts, suggests that politicians would consider a significant level of scrutiny to be too risky. It would require a significant degree of credulity to believe that politicians would allow a genuinely free press.

Because politicians make the law it means that IPSO would have to operate within the law made by the government and approved by Parliament, and importantly, the threat of future laws that could be made.

Even if you put an apparently independent individual as head of a non-government regulatory body that individual would still operate within a framework that is pre-determined.

There are close connections between the government and top newspapers – proprietors and politicians after possible coverage within the newspapers in the run-up to the election often court each other. It is questionable as to what independence could actually mean. The mass media upholds a narrow political paradigm with parameters set by Politically Correct dogma. An ‘independent’ press has a insignificant democratic value as it is.

There are laws outside of specifically press legislation that could be used to target small independent media outlets and bloggers if they are deemed to step too far outside what is considered Political Correctness. Equality laws could be used to browbeat genuine opposition to the Politically Correct paradigm because it uses vaguely defined concepts, and which the decision to apply in a particular case comes down to an individual’s personal prejudices – and this individual would tend to be sympathetic to the prevailing dogma. These prejudices tend to be towards to mass immigration and Diversity, and other opinions can be outlawed with the burden of proof quietly placed onto the accused.

Therefore it seems that the debate over an independent press is irrelevant when in the context of the big picture which places the press alongside the government against the interests of the British people. The relationship between the government and the press is basically collaboration and/or a competition for influence and power against the interests of ordinary British people. The only important question is the power possessed by ordinary British people and small independent media outlets that are shut out by the government and the mass media – at least the ordinary people and media outlets that do not wittingly or unwittingly uphold the Marxist/Globalist collaboration that runs our lives.

 

Why Nationalism Equals Freedom

Nationalism, through the preservation and positive assertion of cultural traditions, can defend freedom from agendas that would remove them in order to dictate society to their own designs.

On the Left they consider the destruction of our cultural heritage as equivalent to freedom, with the clear implication that cultural traditions are a constraint on our freedom.

Nationalists are portrayed as defective for attempting to preserve our cultural traditions. We are seen as stooges or dupes of the capitalist plot to enslave the working class. I will argue that this portrayal is a more accurate description of the anti-indigenous European cultural tradition movements. In fact, the issue of cultural heritage is independent of the class issue completely since it divides the nation that inherits the cultural heritage in common.

Our cultural traditions are not entangled with a capitalist project to enslave us all while they pursue profit despite themselves pursuing the latter. Our cultural traditions stand opposed to it in the sense that they represent a threatening symbolism of independence and social freedom. In Marxist theory the ruling bourgeois class keeps the proletariat, or working class, in a condition where they can be exploited for the benefit of the bourgeoisie. They can be kept in this position in ways that extend from naked force to keeping them in a false consciousness where they are not aware of their exploited condition. Within Marxist tradition national cultural traditions, at least in the West, are used as an instrument of this false consciousness.

I will argue that the destruction of indigenous cultural traditions in Britain and Europe overall will lead to the weakening of our societies and ultimately their deaths in order to be replaced by a society envisaged by certain others agendas. This will end liberty. In order for there to be liberty our cultural traditions need to preserved from the attacks of the global elite, misguided Marxists and Islamists.

The Global Elite

It is the case that most people are unaware of the condition that they are in but the truth is not a Marxist narrative. There is a global elite comprised of those within the political class, media moguls, bankers and industrialists that do have an excessive level of control over our lives and societies. There are, however, no global working class but nations and peoples. People are not united by class but descent and cultural affinity even if there are people in certain countries that are poor and some that are rich. Marxist attempts to promote class warfare is a ploy to split nations in order to weaken them because a nation’s strength is in its unity and its consciousness of itself as a nation in a similar way to the family. These cultural tradition are independent of the global elite and political class, not instruments of them.

These cultural traditions can hurt them. This is why national identities are under threat from mass immigration and multiculturalism. These are orchestrated by the global elite. It is politicians who control our borders and who are also part of the global elite. Why would the global elite want to destroy national identities and cultural traditions if these things were preserving its hegemony? It would not make sense. The fact is that our traditional identities are an alternative to a elite-preferred identity as rootless consumers of their mass produced rubbish – this makes our cultural traditions a threat to the elite.

The manifestations of these attempts to destroy identity and traditions are multifaceted. Many of these manifestations can be included in the officially sanctioned secular religion of Diversity. This is intended to replace the homogeneity of our traditional societies in Europe ( not however in Africa and Asia where European immigrants were considered to have been a disease rather as a source of cultural enrichment) with diverse ones comprised of various non-indigenous cultures. Diversity is intended to a create a society where every race and religion lives peacefully alongside each other – accept it seems the host one, which gets demonised and edged out. People who resist this process risks social vilification with the accusation of ‘racist’, ‘fascist’ or any other word or phrase used for this purpose. Because the ideal of Diversity does not resemble reality there is a requirement for the utilisation of the media and state apparatus to present the ‘ideal’ picture of Diversity; this is why Muslim-controlled no-go zones in certain areas of some cities do not make first page news, only subsequent riots do and are blamed on a ‘far-right’ bogeyman. This directs hatred to those (non-extremist) people who want to preserve our cultural heritage and national identity. There is undoubted co-ordination amongst the powerful sectors against our cultural heritage.

In order for the media and state apparatus to be utilised for this requires the power to use them. If these are used to conceal the reality of Diversity then it must follow that those with the power support Diversity. If they support Diversity they must also oppose the preservation of national cultural traditions. If they support these traditions then why support what presents a existential threat to them.

The Totalitarian Threat from the Far-Left

In order to be free from the global elite running our lives we need to assert our national identities and cultural traditions since these form a barrier against their influence. The threat is three pronged. The second threat  comes from the far-Left who want to exert their warped totalitarianism onto people – as with the global elite they want to separate us from our national identities in order to make it easier to control us. Rather than nationalists being overly sentimental individuals who cannot handle our apparent liberation from the burden of our cultural traditions, nationalists who defend cultural traditions and national identities are battling powerful forces with clear aims in mind. Someone stands up to such powers are actually strong, not weak. The easy thing to do would be to embrace Diversity. Doing so would lead to an easier life because we would not be vilified.

The question would appear to arise as to how the Marxists and the capitalistic global elite are interacting on this. It appears confusing because on the one hand Marxists think that they are opposing capitalists and yet, in supporting mass immigration and multiculturalism, they both have a common instrument to their respective aims. It is possible that they both believe that they using each other in the short-term for ultimate aims. Whatever the exact mechanisms are it is clear that these are at least two fronts in the defence of our national identities and cultural traditions since these would preserve our freedom from both threats.

As the political philosopher, Edmund Burke, understood cultural traditions solidify society. A solidified society is more difficult to destroy than one without an identity. Every far-Left regime has come to power amidst a revolution. In order for there to be a revolution there has to be preceding disorder, and stronger societies are less prone to disorder. So our cultural tradition can provide the strength to offset totalitarian attempts to destroy society.

Islamisation

The other threat that we need to assert our identity and traditions against is Islam. The survival of identities and traditions depend on the survival of the people who carry them. Mass immigration and multiculturalism is leading to the demographic replacement of indigenous Europeans. There are already 50 million Muslims in European. Due to differing birth and fertility rates the Muslim population is rapidly increasing and the indigenous population is shrinking as what happens when fertility rates are below replacement level (2.1). Because Muslims are extremely unlikely to adopt the identity and cultural traditions of the indigenous population, even converts, this means that indigenous Europeans nations are on course to vanish culturally, and certainly ethnically.

This process has the backing of the Establishment and their foot soldiers on the far-Left.  The myth that any opposition to Islamisation amounts to ‘Islamophobia’ is allowed to spread unchallenged; the ‘Islamophobia’ label basically allows the use of race laws to enforce a blasphemy law on non-Muslims. The inconsistency with out culturally political tradition is clearly problematic since freedom of speech is a (threatened) part of our identity. Since it would require substantive opposition to halt or reverse the trend, demonising such opposition is practically creating room for the Islamic takeover. The is a trend backed up by the facts.

This begs the question of why, if it is in control, the global elite would allow such a process to happen. It is far from certain that a Muslim population will drop their strong religious identity in favour of consumer (non)identity that the global would like them to. If they are/were in control could this represent an experiment spinning out of control? But then the elite-controlled mainstream media happily wield the term ‘Islamophobia’, and wealthy individuals from the oil-rich Gulf states wield influence over the global elite so there is indications of collaboration for respective agendas. Islamic immigration may be used to destroy indigenous European identities and traditions, which the first phase in the plans for both the global elite and Marxists, but it may end up replacing one homogeneity with another one.

The far-Left support for the Islamisation of our countries is easier to explain since it is based on its delusion and blindness. It is simple. The Muslims are oppressed proletariat. European people and culture are oppressive. Therefore the Marxist prophecy will be achieved if the Muslims gain control of European nations from the oppressive societies that it replaced. This is false. In Marxist theology the subsequent withering state and communist society would be atheist when the masses drop the ‘opium’ of religion as their oppressive conditions are lifted- in addition to the fact that Muslim-led states in the Gulf are extremely powerful. These states are extremely repressive – yet these states are considered Western allies. These Islamic countries are clearly too powerful to have the global elite impose ‘democracy’ onto them.

In addition to this these states pay for mosques to built in our societies with support of the far-Left thugs who deal with any local resistance and the global elite who acquiesce.

The pattern of Muslim majority countries is persecution of non-Muslim minorities so this goes against the oppressed Muslim narrative. Particular examples are Pakistan, with regular attacks on Christians and absence of religious rights in Saudi Arabia where there is not a single church for the 2 million Christians living there. It is difficult to know for certain how much of the population of these countries support such things but it cannot be assumed that the proportion of those that support second-class status for non-Muslims are just a small minority. There is no reason to assume that in the event of Islamic control in Britain that non-Muslims would have equal rights to the Muslim majority. To rest on this assumption would be to rest on an exception from the general pattern.

There are clearly several agendas who are intent on using Islam, and the charge of ‘islamophobia’ to remove our cultural barriers and control our society for the benefit of others.

Conclusion

Once freedom is achieved we can all live alongside each other on this planet as nations determining our own futures while preserving our pasts. This is why national identities and cultural traditions must be exerted against those forces attempting to destroy them. Removal of our cultural tradition removes the strength from our society and makes it easier for our freedoms to be destroyed.

The threat comes from various directions and the relationship between them is complicated. Each have a separate aim which is to replace our society, identities and traditions with something else that is more conducive with their own interests. Their aims are different, and incompatible, but the removal of out cultural traditions is something that unite them pragmatically in the short term so we must protect our cultural traditions and societies amidst powerful competing interests. Therefore in order to counter the interests and assert ours we need to assert our cultural traditions against anybody that threatens it in order to provide the stability to protect our societies.

If every nation protected its cultural traditions (in a positive manner rather than a belligerent one) then the power of these (universal) threats would be weakened everywhere leading to a drastic level of power for the elite and other odious agendas to split our societies. Thus, (positive) nationalism is necessary if you want to freedom and self-determination.

 

Mark Duggan: Another Mythologisation That Is Designed To Make Us All Feel Guilty

Mark Duggan’s case in another example of how a Politically Correct narrative can build up to sustain a socialist mythology.

In order to serve their narrative the Left ignores the facts. Evidence suggest that Mark Duggan was a criminal. He was a prominent member of a Tottenham gang that participated in drugs and violent crime. It is because that the police had him under surveillance that events led to his shooting. Police say that he had just come back from a dealer from whom he had just bought a gun. If he had just bought a gun it is therefore reasonable to conclude that he could have been armed when he was confronted. It becomes difficult to sustain the idea that he was a victim therefore.

Yet we are supposed to believe this case represents an injustice. Why? Because he was an unarmed man. This illustrates that taking a single statement out of context can transform an entire narrative. It was discovered that when he was shot he was not holding a gun. However a gun was found within 20ft on grass verge so he was likely to have had one very shortly beforehand before throwing it.

This is where the predictable conspiracy theories come in from minority interest groups and their allies amongst the trendy and loony Left.  It has been claimed that the police planted the gun to frame an innocent man whom they shot, presumably, for fun. Of course there is no evidence. But then conspiracy theories do not require evidence. The jury concluded, reasonably, that Duggan had thrown the gun just after he got out of the taxi and before he was confronted by the police. After all what is more likely? That this known criminal had a gun that he then discarded or police wanted to frame this particular individual.

It was concluded that Duggan was lawfully killed on the basis that the shooting copper thought Duggan had a gun. The fact that there was not a gun in Duggan’s hand when he was killed is not the most important thing here. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but sometimes the only way to be sure that a suspect is armed is to wait for them to fire. By then however an innocent person could be killed.

Duggan was of mixed race (though for the sake of the narrative he black) so predictably this has become a race issue. Any chance to stir up ethnic minorities against the majority is not bypassed. It has been absurdly claimed that police shot him because he was black. He was the first person to be shot dead by police in London for 4 years. So why do more young black men not get shot if police shoot black people for fun?

It usually follows that us white people should feel guilty. If an ‘injustice’ is committed against one person from an ethnic minority then it is usually considered a crime against that minority or all minorities simultaneously – but not vice versa because if a crime is committed by an ethnic minority against a white person then that apparently stemmed from ‘discrimination’. Translation – it is our fault. Us white people are placed on the ‘oppressive’ side of the Marxist narrative; we apparently, through the nature of our existence, uphold racial relations that discriminate against minorities.

The police are portrayed as a instrument of the capitalist state that for some reason has an interest in ‘keeping the black man down’ rather than turning them into wage-labour – or at least potential reserve labour to keep wages down. Duggan’s shooting has been portrayed as a continuation of the ‘sus’ laws in the 1980s in which young black men were routinely stopped and searched. However, searching an innocent black man without good reason and shooting a known armed criminal are completely different. They certainly did not seem to presume anything about Duggan.

This illustrates the process of Politically Correct mythology-making. A sober look at the facts indicate a non-racial issue in which a known and persistent criminal who lived by the gun died by it- not a cause celebre for the heroic minority facing oppression from a racial elite.

The verdict has stoked fears of another riot like the one in 2011 that was triggered by Duggan’s shooting. That demonstrates the use of fear within the narrative that is supposed induce us majority into acting on our supposed obligations to the struggling minority – if we do not become more ‘socially aware’ we run the risk of another explosion of despair of the urban underclass like in 2011.

In fact the riots was an explosion of criminal opportunism and orgy of destruction for the sake of it. Suspects brought in had an average of 11 previous conviction each. Gang masters were orchestrating gangs of youths emptying shops and moving the loot for sale later on. Despite being told that rioters were hungry due to cuts there were gangs of youths breaking into shops and helping themselves to the latest trainers and phones – not very tasty, not that I have tried them personally. Greed, not desperation, were at the root of the riots. It was not a cry for help by an oppressed underclass – individuals from affluent backgrounds were caught up in the opportunism too.

Such a simplified dichotomy needs to ignore many things to uphold itself. There is much victimisation of white people. If the police were in place to uphold apparent white privilege then why would they have allowed young white girls to be used as sexual playthings by Muslim paedophile gangs despite being repeatedly told? Ever since the MacPherson report greater levels of restraint has been imposed on speech. This has been greater on white people. An ethnic minority can declare that there are too many white people and get invited onto the BBC as an ‘anti-racist’- a white person can declare that there are too many ethnic minorities in Britain and will have more chance of getting arrested than of being given a platform. Therefore there is a level of discrimination towards white people.

People may claim that this is balancing an existing injustice but this false. This idea that there is an injustice is based on the existence of a majority of white people in prominent positions – but with this being a European country there is an indigenous white majority. In Africa you would find black majorities, for example.

Anyway, even if there is a self-serving white elite then why would this elite want to balance things up? Why would they allow there to be a white working class? White boys are falling behind Indian and East Asians boys in school. If there is a white elite that is trying to maintain white privilege then why it allow an education system in which whites would not come out on top? The fact is that discrimination in Britain is not overly based on race- when it is then it is ‘positive discrimination’ consciously applied against whites overwhelmingly by whites, and called for by ethnic minorities. It certainly seems that white people in power are not looking out for other whites- our elites are looking out for themselves. They would work with other ethnic groups to preserve their privileges against other white people. Minorities do possess power in Politically Correct Britain.

Members of ethnic minorities that position themselves as spokesman for their particular minority are not necessarily concerned with benefiting their ethnic group to the extent that it would help them personally. They are just trying to claim prestige within their particular group and within the eyes of the trendy Guardian readers. Duggan’s shooting is an opportunity for such people. Before anyone absorbs the victim mythology this needs to be considered.

If the police has a white ideal then that would not explain its obsession with diversity. Then underlying current of the state dogma of diversity is that non-white is a sign of progress from whiteness. In other words, the less white British society is, the better. Not exactly a police force trying to uphold whiteness in society. Don’t be surprised to see greater levels of ‘positive discrimination’ to buy social order for a little while longer. Through fear of mass unrest that are common in France ethnic minorities hold power over the police and the authorities. The majority are passive so we do not.

To conclude, the narrative racial victimisation surrounding the Mark Duggan case needs to be rejected because it does not reflect reality. The Left needs to create an underdog. In siding themselves with the underdog they therefore feel better while trying to make everyone else feel worse. There is nothing to feel bad about. Mark Duggan was an individual who made bad choices; not everyone from inner-city areas become criminals. But this case was a case of a criminal dying the way he appeared to live.

There is no racial oppression dichotomy. Reality is in fact complicated and messy.

THE MYTH OF ISLAMOPHOBIA

Ignorance, laziness or hidden agendas are behind the use of the term ‘Islamophobia’. This is because there are sound culturally defensive reasons to resist the proliferation of mosques; we are entitled to defend our own culture, and our own culture gives way when another gains ground in Britain. There is no reason why defending our culture implies an irrational fear of Islam; there are plenty of rational reasons to oppose mosque building, and Islamic encroachment.

The term has cynical uses. The Left uses it to demonise any Briton who resists multiculturalism and the spread of Islam, while Islamists use it to claim a sense of victimhood and therefore the sympathy of the more gullible members of our society; this is used to create the space for the pursuit of their agenda.

It is repeatedly argued that opposition to mosques or the spread of Islamic culture within Britain, and Europe,  is motivated by ‘Islamophobia’.

Definition

The term ‘Islamophobia’ is defined as an irrational fear and hatred of Islam (or Muslims). The problem with arguing that this is the motivation for opposition to mosque building is that it excludes motivations that are based on rational objections that are motivated by cultural defensiveness. Opposition to Islam can be rational because it can be based on reasoned conclusions about the religion itself or the effects that it is having on the cultural landscape in Britain.

The term is often used automatically for any perceived hostility towards Muslims, without any actual research into the causes of any hostility. It assumes that Muslims are victims without asking whether non-Muslims, especially the native majority, are victims in a particular case.

Arguments for the ‘phobic thesis

Arguments that claim that Islamophobia is the basis of any perceived opposition to the spread of Islam are false; they merely assume without any logical or factual basis.

There are those who argue that Islamophobia is expressed whenever any non-Muslim feel that their values are under threat from Islam. Why is this irrational? Such sentiments are defensive because they are reacting against a perceived threat. Such perceptions are rational because there are many Islamic organisations in Britain, and around the world, that are in no way implicit about the their intentions towards non-Islamic values. Islam4UK, or whatever name they go by at any particular time, are an example in Britain.

In Tower Hamlets, nearly half Muslim, the mayor, Lutfur Rahman, has been connected to an organisation called Islam For Europe which intends to Islamicise Europe, as its name suggests. The funding, and planning permission, for mosques are reputed to come from a multitude of shadowy groups; their intentions therefore remain a mystery.

It would be inaccurate, therefore, to portray any threat to our values as non-existent, as in the imagination of ‘Islamophobes’. To assume otherwise would be complacent because why shouldn’t we be on guard in terms of preserving our values? We cannot guarantee that anyone else would. It is often said that the majority should be ‘sensitive’ to minority cultures; this in fact means deferential. However, this is not necessarily reciprocated because expecting minorities to be sensitive to the majority, according to many Leftists, is ‘oppression’.

Thus, when a mosque is proposed, any opposition is deemed to be discriminating against the Islamic community rather than as an indigenous population upset about their culture and history being under threat. No sensitivity deemed necessary in this case presumably. It is not deemed to be important if the Christian majority are upset about a church being converted into a mosque, because it is deemed hateful to object to giving way to another culture if you are Christian or indigenous European. Why this is the case is not convincingly explained.

There are absurd attempts to connect any motivation to defend our way of life with fascism. The problem with this argument is that it assumes that one minority can be inserted into the place of another minority in any narrative. This wrong because minorities are not units, they are different and have very different histories. For example, worries about the effects on our culture by mass immigration is not the same as believing in a worldwide Jewish conspiracy. The latter were, or are, conspiracy theories; Muslims are objectively building mosques at a fast rate and, as a share of the population, are growing. While I am not advocating these as reasons to hate Muslims, only to worry about our culture, or to hate at all, but fears of the spread of Islam have a objective basis, they are not conspiracy theories; it is not necessarily the case that someone has it in for the Islamic community because they oppose the conversion of a Grade II listed building into a mosque.

The Muslims-are-the-new-Jews argument is also wrong because it connects worries about our way of life with fascism and the far-right. While the far-right do campaign on threats to our culture, it does not follow that everyone who worries about the survival of our culture is on the far-right or that these threats do not exist. After all, it would be expected that the far-right would react to such threats. If you are concerned about far-right motivations then adopt the cause for yourself with your own allegedly more benevolent motivations.

We should not attempt to discredit any worries about threats to our way of life just because the far-right may adopt those threats as central to their campaigns. We may spite them if we did, but this way of life, and our culture in a more historic sense, belongs to all Britons whether dead, alive or yet to be born. We would only spite ourselves. So if any far-right group objects to a mosque it is not to say that we should adopt a contrarian position and support a mass mosque building program; we should defend our culture because our culture gives way when mosque are built. We have a right to our own culture in our own country.

A rational reaction to uncertainty could be at the root of any hostility to the spread of mosques. Sayeeda Warsi has argued that it is bigotry to divide Muslims as ‘moderate’ or ‘extremist’. This is wrong; it is  not bigotry, it is a reaction from a population feeling under siege from a rapidly growing immigrant population, amongst whom there are significant amount of individuals and groups hostile to the majority population and culture. We need to know who the threats are; division between moderate and extremist is way a of trying to identify the threat.

This is a situation where victimhood is misplaced. Warsi at least acknowledged that the Muslim community can do more. After all, what are we to do? It has been reported that when some young Muslim men went to Pakistan for terrorist training their families brought them back, or at least tried. The thing is that they did not say anything to the authorities. This begs the question of how many people in that community knew and would not have tried to do anything about it. This could be mistaken for complicity, if it is not actually complicity. What are the rest of us supposed to think?

When there is hostility towards the majority population, and the real extent remains hidden from us, then of we are entitled to react defensively and protect our culture. After all, it is better, without absolute certainty, to assume that it is under threat because that way we at least have a chance of defending it. Complacency would leave it, and us, defenceless; it is logical. Opposition to mosques should be viewed within the context of a native majority defending our way of life, not as a ‘phobia’.

Motivations that are not irrational or prejudiced in nature

Opposition can be based on cultural defensiveness. This is not irrational in nature, or necessarily driven by hatred. There are indigenous cultural identities in Europe; these are non-Islamic, so whenever Islam cultural establishes itself on European soil, it is most likely that an indigenous cultural identity is displaced. Therefore the building of a mosque represents the displacement of a European culture by an alien one, which Islam actually is.

Those who are of a Left-wing disposition, or otherwise in thrall to political correctness, would probably cry ”racism!” at this point. However, it is an objective fact that Islam is alien to Europe because it is entirely Middle Eastern. Some would argue that Christianity is Middle Eastern, and this is true when you talk about pure Christianity, but what we have in Europe is Christianised paganism since this was the only was the only way that indigenous Europeans could be persuaded to formally adopt Christianity. This is what gives way when mosques are built; why shouldn’t native people object to their culture giving way?

There would not necessarily be any hate involved here; only love of ones own culture. Defensiveness, not aggression.

Our own culture has value. Why should our own culture be subordinate to immigrant cultures? In too many areas, and too often, our own culture is expected to give way when another one wishes to expand. There are those that would argue that the host country should adapt to immigrant cultures and immigrants. Why? Why not the other way round? Surely our own culture, since it was here first and has been established for so long, should come first.

Minority cultural groups, including Muslims, may not particular like the idea of a majority host culture, but we were here first; then again, the ones who are most shrill about apparent minority discomfort in face of the majority culture tend to be left-wing members of the majority culture who do not tend to meet many minorities. Perhaps the Muslim community, on coming to and living in a non-Muslim country, should respect the host culture even if they do not agree with it. Muslims should not cry foul when parts of the indigenous population object to a mosque that would be more at home in Saudi Arabia; how many Muslim countries would allow skyline dominating cathedrals to be built there? Rather than being Islamophobic this country, in fact, is too generous for its own good.

There is a good in favour of being less generous. Burke argued that the culture of a nation is a partnership between ancestors, the living and those yet to arrive. This is the trust argument. If we allow our own culture to lose ground within our cultural landscape then we will be unjustifiably robbing future generations of a chance to appreciate their heritage; imagine if our ancestors failed to preserve all those cultural icons that we currently enjoy. We would be doing this to future generations. A mosque may be seen as a local matter; however their proliferation is of a national problem.

There are sound reasons for opposing the proliferation of mosques, and the spread of Islam, within Britain because wherever Islam gains ground, our own culture gives way; there is value to our own culture, and we have a right to defend it.

The use of ‘Islamophobia’ as a cynical tool

Prominent Muslims, such as Mehdi Hasan, often use the term Islamophobia to escape scrutiny. For example, when the barbaric practice of honour killings are carried out or when Westerners criticise attitudes to women amongst the more conservative elements of the Muslim community, the word ‘Islamophobe’ is directed at the individual, or individuals, making the criticism. But, surely criticising honour killings does not mean that that person has an irrational fear of Islam; only reacting to behaviour that one finds distasteful, behaviour that has a cultural basis within, usually in Britain, rural conservative Pakistan. Why should such behaviour escape criticism?

Islamic fundamentalists use the term Islamophobe in order justify their murderous actions and intentions. In the case of Lars Hedegaard, the Danish writer whom was the victim of a murder attempt by an Islamic nutcase, and an amateur judging by the point-blank miss, he was blamed for bringing it upon himself. It was argued by some on the Left that his ‘Islamophobia’ was the cause of the murder attempt; blame was not attached to the homicidal maniacs who tried to murder Hedegaard for practicing his democratic right to free speech.

This is clearly cowardice; this is why the Left side with Islamists. This is also why they tend to demonise those Britons who practice their democratic rights, and patriotic duty, and oppose mosques designed to impose on our cultural landscape. It is part of an attempt to facetiously create a direct connection between Islamophobia and opposition to mosques.

The Left has its own agenda, that it shares with its Islamist allies; the cultural destruction of the West. Islam is seen as one means of undermining Western countries. If indigenous Europeans successfully resisted Islamification then the West could survive. Using the ‘Islamophobia’ as a smearing tool the resistance could be undermined. This is because we have gotten used to an easy life; being associated with an ‘ism or ‘phobia could make it a lot more difficult. We have to learn the art of sacrifice once more otherwise we will lose our whole way of life, not just the comfortable little niches we have created for ourselves.

It is not only Islamic fundamentalists who use the term Islamophobia in order to justify their hateful beliefs. There are many left-wing commentators, or sometimes even right-wing ones, at least the more spineless ones, that try to argue that the whole phenomenon of Islamic terrorism is due to ‘Islamophobia’. This basically means that Muslims become radicalised because we have not been very nice to them; if we were nicer, and allow the Muslim community, and any shadowy organisation, to build as many mosques as they want then the terrorist problem will decline.

This is nonsense; even if that was the case, then how is defending our culture being nasty? Surely expecting us to give way is not particularly nice. To argue, or to imply, that our ‘aggressive’ or ‘racist’ behaviour causes Islamic terrorism is false because the issue can be related to the ideological basis of Islam itself. It also turns the causal link, to the extent that it is actually sound, on its head. If there is the extent of hostility to Islam that there is supposed to be, then can it not be caused by terrorist problem in the first place?

Accusations of ‘Islamophobia’ are cynically used to prevent criticism of Islam and multiculturalism and ensure compliance.

Could Islam pose a threat?

Is Islam as fluffy and misunderstood as its defenders claim?

Islam rests on the basis that it is the sole message of God, or Allah. This implies therefore that any other philosophy is inferior since men are subordinate to God since no other philosophy is divine, or perfectly so. This would therefore mean that there is a necessary strand of supremacism running through it.

There are those who argue that not all Muslims are supremacist and tolerate other cultures. I am not claiming that all Muslims are supremacists out to destroy other cultures, but when you see devout Muslims in robes and long beards building mosques then there is good reason to assume that our culture will not be respected. There is nothing irrational here; reaction to this would be defensive, not aggression.

Our own culture has value too. It is assumed that any attempt to defend it is racist; racist is a word used interchangeably with Islamophobia even though Muslims and Islam are not races. The former are a religious community that can comprise every race and the latter contains values. In the same way that someone can oppose an ideology because opposition to or revulsion of its values, so someone can oppose a religion, or view it as dangerous, including Islam, on a rational basis.

There other misconceptions. It is often assumed that anyone who does not view Islam as peaceful believes that all Muslims are suicide-bombers, or at least treated as such. It is seemingly beyond that understanding of such people that being aware of the more militant and intolerant aspects, or basis, of Islam is different from assuming that all Muslims are homicidal. Even though the followers of Islam are called Muslims, to talk about the religion is not necessarily to talk about the people; Muslims do not consciously become Muslims, they are, generally, born into it. It is undeniable that when terrorists cite aspects of Islam as justifications for their actions they are generally accurate in doing so. For example, some of these bombers, and those manipulating these gullible fools, claim that anyone who dies in the service of Islam will go to paradise.

This goes back to their prophet’s time; he is said, when establishing his earthly empire, to have told his followers that anyone who dies for the religion will go to paradise. He also encouraged his followers to fight unbelievers; unfortunately too many have followed his command. A minority have of course, or at least in actually fighting if not in a metaphorical sense, followed this command. This is on the basis that any alternative religion, or system of values, could pose a threat to Islam; this is at the basis of Islamist claims that the West poses a threat to the Islamic world and its, supposedly pure, values.

Thus, those who claim that Islam  is harmless, and that anyone who portrays it as a threat is an irrational, paranoid, Islamophobe, are, at worst wrong; at best, complacent.

The Empirical case

In Pakistan Christians are persecuted by a significant number of the Muslim majority. It is claimed that Islamic blasphemy laws are used by fundamentalist elements of the Muslim majority to persecute on the basis of a crime against Islam; accusations can be made against members of the Christian community in the same way that accusations of witchcraft were made in Salem. This can be deadly.

In a recent case hundreds of Christian homes were burnt down on the basis that one Christian, a 14 year old girl, was allegedly discovered with burnt remains of the Koran in her bag; this was found to be false. These accusations were based on rumour that was started by a local fundamentalist in the (successful) hope of starting a campaign against the local Christian population.

This has even led to the campaign for a separate Christian province in Pakistan; clearly things must be bad for the Christian minority if they want to go to the effort of campaigning for a chunk of the country to themselves. Things are unlikely to change because few politicians in Pakistan, whether Christian (4% of the population) or Muslim, are willing to take the risk of doing so; Salman Taseer, the governer of Punjab, was assassinated in 2011 because he wanted to reform the blasphemy laws in order to prevent them being used for vendettas against Christians.

The Christian population has plummeted in the Middle East. A century ago Christians made up 20% of the population; today it down to about 5%. The majority of Egyptians in Europe are Coptic, although they only make up 10 per cent of the population in Egypt. Life for Coptic’s in Egypt is clearly intolerable; this is a problem that can get worse under the Islamist President, Morsi, after the fall of the secular regime of Mubarak, who protected the Coptic population along with other populations within Egypt. Why would non-Muslims want to risk living in an Islamic majority country?

There are cases in this country. (Generally Pakistani) Muslims in this country are known for establishing ghettoes in British cities; these are part of these cities that become entirely Muslim, and unofficially become forbidden to non-Muslims. These exist in cities and towns such as Bradford, Luton and Oldham. Many deny their existence, preferring the illusion of a functioning multicultural Britain. Michael Nazir-Ali, an influential member of the CofE clergy and of Pakistani-Christian extraction, was criticised for mentioning these no-go areas.

The perpetrators of the sex grooming scandal in the North of England, where Muslim gangs preyed on vulnerable young white girls, were connected to these communities. They were products of conservative Pakistani cultural that did not need to integrate into modern Britain because of multiculturalism that encourage different communities to live parallel lives. According to multiculturalism every community in Britain has a right to preserve their culture- except the indigenous population.

These girls were therefore seen as fair game because they did not live up to the moral standards that these Muslim paedophiles claimed to uphold. Plying vulnerable young girls with drink and drugs in order to sexual assault them, and pass them around your mates like toys, is a strange definition of morality. This is sort of ‘morality’ should stay in Pakistan if that is where it came from. The more blind, or stupid, ‘liberals’ would probably say ‘who are we to judge, it is their culture’. This answer is simple. The British people. It is also up to us whether we want our country full of mosques.

However, Muslim women would be less likely to be treated that way because the Koran makes a distinction between Muslim and non-Muslim. You can do things to non-Muslim women that you cannot do to Muslim women. It has been claimed that, in Muslim societies, Muslim women are second class citizens, while non-Muslim women are third class. If you are non-Muslim women then you have rational reasons to oppose a growing Islamic influence in multicultural Britain.

It is not just women; non-Muslims in general are treated as second class citizens in many Muslim countries, and are treated as unequal by Islam. Historically this has always been the case. According to Islam non-Muslims, or dhimmi, should pay a jizya; this is a tax paid to the Muslim rulers, by non-Muslims, in order to be allowed to practice their religion, albeit in private. The basis of this was to compensate Muslims for having to live in the company of non-Muslims since non-Muslims have traditionally been seen as a source of potentially corrupting, or impure, influence. Nowadays, most Muslim countries do not levy this tax; they just make it difficult to practice different religions openly. Some provide more leeway than others. Muslim majority countries with secular, or reasonably secular, constitutions allow greater freedom, but this depends on particular regimes. There is nothing about Islam that would grant equal status to non-Muslims.

Overall, although this article is not intending to claim that all Muslims are violent, there is undoubtedly a fundamental problem with violence towards non-Muslim minorities within Muslim countries, or where Muslims numerically dominate. The Gatestone Institute, a civil liberties organisation, runs a website that is very informative of this problem. I do not have sufficient room in this article to give a comprehensive list of such cases, but Gatestone has quite a few from many different countries.

Thus, there are empirical examples to base genuine concerns as to how a future non-Muslim minority would fare since Islam treats non-Muslims as unequal. Nothing is entirely certain, but why give up our own culture in order to take the risk?