The Olympics and the left – It’s the political correctness, stupid…

Robert Henderson

Something odd has been happening during the London Olympics : after decades of chanting the mantra “competitive sports are a social evil” most of the liberal left in Britain have either embraced them or at least ceased pumping out the anti-competition propaganda. Happily for nostalgia lovers, the ineffable Polly Toynbee refused to turn her ideological coat as she responded to David Cameron’s call for more competitive sports in schools with ‘“What of most children who never make a school team, humiliated by never being picked, begging their mums for “off games” notes? Modern PE has something for everyone: Indian dancing could become a lifelong fitness habit. ‘ (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/13/coalition-olympic-cheer-will-subside). Where would we be without her? An unflickering ideological beacon in a windswept political world.

Left Foot Forward is a self-described “political blog for progressives” which has as one of its aims “ A Britain we all call home, where citizens of every background continue to build a shared country.” (http://www.leftfootforward.org/about/). Its take on the Olympics gives a good flavour of the new leftist attitude towards sport. In a piece entitled Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland reaction: Team GB has brought the UK together Left Foot Forward enthused

“What a sublime riposte to the haters, the racists, the bigots, to the Griffins, Mails and Burleys of the world, British athletics’s finest hour, a golden night to end the perfect day for Team GB – a night that not in our wildest dreams could we have imagined when awarded the Games seven years ago.

An evening, a day, to bring the country together, showing once the more the power of sport to unite, the power of the Olympics to showcase the best we’ve got to offer – with the prospect of more to come today, from Ed Clancy, Lewis Smith, Christine Ohuruogu, Ben Ainslie, Iain Percy, Andrew Simpson, Laura Robson and Andy Murray.

Alex Gregory, Pete Reed, Tom James, Andrew Triggs Hodge, Katherine Copeland, Sophie Hosking, Dani King, Laura Trott, Jo Rowsell, Jess Ennis, Greg Rutherford and Mo Farah, we salute you all…” (http://www.leftfootforward.org/2012/08/london-2012-olympic-gamesscotland-wales-and-northern-ireland-reaction-team-gb-has-brought-the-uk-together/).

Why the change? It’s the political correctness stupid. From the late 1980s onwards British liberals gradually came to the realisation that globalism could be the most effective of engines for the dissolution of nations and the promotion of internationalism. Globalism meant the destruction of the national self-sufficiency of the developed world as large swathes of its manufacturing capacity, extractive industries , agriculture and eventually service industries were either destroyed or offshored to the third world. At the same time as control of trade and industry was being placed in a supranational context, political control was being ceded to bodies beyond national control, most notably by the development of the EU and the ever expanding reach of UN agencies. Most excitingly for liberals, globalism provided the excuse for continued and increasing mass immigration. All this allowed the ruling elite in Britain to remove themselves from the democratic control of their native population as the major political parties all converged on the liberal internationalist ideology. .

When challenged on the loss of employment or diminution of national sovereignty, liberals relentlessly recited the mantra that nation states were obsolete and globalism, as a natural and irreversible evolution of the world social order, should be gratefully embraced and in any case the process was “unstoppable”. The mentality of these people was recently baldly displayed by the Irishman Peter Sutherland, the UN’s special representative for migration:

“The United States, or Australia and New Zealand, are migrant societies and therefore they accommodate more readily those from other backgrounds than we do ourselves, who still nurse a sense of our homogeneity and difference from others.

“And that’s precisely what the European Union, in my view, should be doing its best to undermine.” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18519395) .

But there is a gigantic problem for modern liberals: the profound disengagement between the world they seek and reality. What they consider to be the outmoded and barbarous ways of nation states, with their sense of national identity and patriotic feeling, have proven to be stubbornly resistant to the cleansing embrace of globalism. Of course, liberals believe, or at least pretend to believe, that the present still largely unreconstructed state of affairs is just a transitional period between national groupings and the happy-clappy-one- world- living- in- perfect- harmony fantasy they imagine the world will eventually come to in much the same way that Marxists believe that the proletarian revolution is simply a sociologically necessary part of the process on the transition to eventual communist nirvana.

To reach the liberal internationalist promised land the more intelligent amongst the British liberal left have realised that tribal feeling and its concomitant patriotism cannot be swept away in a generation or two and consequently must be pandered to, but only in a way which allows these emotions to be controlled by the politically correct. Just as Stalin resorted to patriotic appeals after Hitler invaded Russia in 1941, so the liberal left have decided to pretend to be patriotic now. Stalin of course had no intention of promoting national feeling long-term , merely to use it to overcome immediate and pressing danger. The modern British liberal uses patriotic feelings equally cynically. He does this by redefining patriotism to pervert it from being a tribal matter to an over-arching ideological construct which provides an umbrella under which any population, no matter how disparate, can shelter .

The British liberal left realised that the Olympics provide a potent delivery system for their bogus internationalist patriotic propaganda. This happened long before the holding of the 2012 Olympics. The London Olympics was conceived as an internationalist propaganda vehicle. Here is the leader of the bid, Seb Coe, in Singapore making the final plea for the games:

“… we’re serious about inspiring young people. Each of them comes from east London, from the communities who will be touched most directly by our Games.

And thanks to London’s multi-cultural mix of 200 nations, they also represent the youth of the world. Their families have come from every continent. They practice every religion and every faith. What unites them is London. “ (http://www.london2012.com/mm/Document/aboutus/General/01/22/85/87/singapore-presentation-speeches.pdf).

The official London Olympics website makes no bones about its mission either:

“It is our aim to make diversity and inclusion a key differentiator of our Games, celebrating the many differences among the cultures and communities of the United Kingdom.

It’s not simply about recruiting a diverse workforce. It’s about the suppliers, the competitors, the officials and the spectators – in fact, everyone connected with the Games, from the security guards to the bus drivers. Diversity and inclusion influence every detail of our Games-time planning, from accessible transport to our Food Vision.” (http://www.london2012.com/about-us/diversity-and-inclusion/

The long established liberal left magazine the New Statesman flagged its interest in the Olympics unambiguously with the cover page on its first issue after the 2012 Olympics entitled The New Patriotism and a story which included the claim that the Olympics showed ‘a soft and benign patriotism, quite different from the hard, defensive patriotism of the Eurosceptic right or any number of Little Englanders, or some Scottish nationalists’. Mo Farah, from Somalia, winning the 10,000 metres and wearing the Union flag, is the multicultural pin-up for the new Britain.” (http://www.leftfootforward.org/2012/08/london-2012-olympic-gamesscotland-wales-and-northern-ireland-reaction-team-gb-has-brought-the-uk-together/).

The “Conservatives “

The supposedly conservative politicians and media have been just as enthusiastic in their promotion of the multicultural, politically correct message. Here are a few choice examples:

“Cameron hails London, the ‘most diverse’ city in world” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ news/politics/9457212/Cameron- hails-London-the-most-diverse- city-in-world.html

“What a pleasure to see patriotism in its broadest and most benevolent form. The British crowd cheered its own, of course, but did not withhold warm applause from rivals. Patriotism does not imply looking down on anyone else’s country; on the contrary, a genuine patriot cheers all friendly nations.

6. There is, while we’re on the subject, such a thing as British patriotism. (Daniel Hannan MEP http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100176517/being-british-means-something/

“And the pride didn’t come only from the medals.

Look at it this way. Mo Farah is an immigrant. Jessica Ennis is mixed race. Most of our gold-winning rowers are women. Clare Balding, the BBC’s best and most popular Olympics presenter, is gay. In other words: these Games are a triumph not simply for Britain; they’re a triumph for modern Britain. It’s a privilege to watch them.” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ culture/tvandradio/9455966/Olympics-on-TV-High-drama- plus-irresistible-emotion-and- thats-just-the-commentators.html).

The attempt to rescue Britishness

Why are the liberal left so keen on Britishness? There are crude political reasons why the leadership of all major British political parties wish to reinvigorate the idea of Britishness. Both Labour and the Liberal Democrats fear a Scottish breakaway from the UK because much of their electoral strength outside of England in the Celtic Fringe. The Tories have no such fears, indeed a UK minus Scotland would be much to their electoral advantage because they have next to no electoral traction there. But they are tied to Britishness by their commitment to the United Kingdom remaining united as a matter of policy based on sentiment and long-established usage – the Tory Party have been the unionist party for well over a century – rather than party advantage.

Next there is the internationalist dimension. All three parties are, at least at the level of their leadership, irrevocably committed to remaining in the supranational organisations, especially the EU, which have removed democratic control from the British elector. They desperately do not want a divided Britain because a Britain sundered through independence of any of its parts would be potentially a loose political cannon and offer immense opportunities for breaking the straitjacket of supranational control with the political balance within a rump UK and whatever part of the UK was newly independent radically altered.

But there is another more fundamental reason which unites the main British parties. All of them are committed, either by belief or expediency, to the politically correct view of the world. At the centre of political correctness lies race. British politicians know in their heart of hearts that the permitting of mass immigration since 1945 has turned a marvellously homogeneous society into one severely fractured by the importation of those who cannot or will not become fully assimilated into British society. This has produced a situation of frightening toxicity, as the imports, encouraged and abetted by the native elite’s promotion of multiculturalism, have created their own ghettos and sought privilege for their own group over others whilst breeding great anger and resentment amongst native Britons.

The British elite have since the 1960s, with the passing of the first Race Relations Act (RRA) in 1965, attempted to suppress this natural resentment and anger of native Britons in ever more ideological and authoritarian ways. They have enshrined political correctness on race and immigration within the British political system to the point where to speak honestly about race and immigration is to invite the ruination of a career; public service now has a legal obligation under the Race Relations Amendment Act (2000) to prove that there is no racial discrimination within any taxpayer funded body, whether that be directly publicly controlled or private bodies in receipt of government contracts; British schools ceaselessly pump out “anti-racist” propaganda; the mainstream media , including the formally conservative newspapers and magazines, at least pay lip service to the joy of diversity and people in general , whether public figures or not, have developed a fear that any statement judged to be non-pc on race and immigration is likely to lead to the loss of a job and, increasingly, to an appearance in court on criminal charges, for example, see the case of Emma West (http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2012/07/27/emma-west-has-her-trial-delayed-yet-again/).

But the liberal left have decided to back the wrong horse with British patriotism. British was always an artificial construct, although it did acquire some of the emotional colouring of a true nation over the centuries. But the post-war immigration destroyed the idea of Britishness as being a unifying denomination simply of the four home nations, the English, Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish. The immigrants began to refer to themselves as British not English, Welsh, Scots or Irish. Worse, they were not simply British but described themselves as hyphenated British such as black-British and British-Asian. British became to mean not a native of the UK (with the special exception of Northern Ireland Protestants) but someone who was from an racial or ethnic minority who happens to live in Britain.

To this redefinition of British was added the devolution of powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland complete with their own national assemblies. This prompted the Scots and Welsh to classify themselves as Scots and Welsh not British. This prompted the English, denied a parliament of their own, to became much more likely to call themselves English rather than British as it was clear that whatever British had meant it no longer had substance.

Today Britishness is shot. The fact that the native British waved their Union Flags and sang the national anthem with great enthusiasm during the Olympics means because British is no longer what they feel themselves to be. Give it six months and the fervour will have evaporated because the reality is the patriotism of native Britons is attached to the true nations of England, Scotland and Wales. (Northern Ireland have two true tribal groups in the Catholics and Protestants, the former thinking themselves Irish and the latter forlornly and now pointlessly identifying themselves as British. ) The Olympics has been bread and circuses not the starting gun for a new British consciousness.

The native British population’s response

Why have the native British been so enthusiastic in their union flag waving and generally patriotic response to the Olympics? Sport is deeply stitched into the British and especially the English social DNA, but the public support for the British team in particular has been extraordinary. Something far beyond the normal tribal response of sports fans has occurred. Moreover, it is not only sports fans who are cheering and waving flag, but the populace at large. Nor was the response limited to the actual Olympics. Amazing crowds came out in often foul weather to watch the Olympic torch being carried around Britain.

What is happening? Human beings are tribal and have a deep-rooted desire to express their sense of belonging to something greater than themselves. The problem for the native British in general and the English in particular is that they have been denied the normal opportunities to express their tribalism. The English have not only been denied opportunities by their omission from public life but have been subject to active abuse by their political leaders and the mainstream media whenever the someone English manages to celebrate some aspect of England and the English publicly. Here is the leading Labour politician Jack Straw when Home Secretary in the Blair Government :

“The English are potentially very aggressive, very violent. We have used this propensity to violence to subjugate Ireland, Wales and Scotland. Then we used it in Europe and with our empire, so I think what you have within the UK is three small nations…who’ve been over the centuries under the cosh of the English. Those small nations have inevitably sought expression by a very explicit idea of nationhood. You have this very dominant other nation, England, 10 times bigger than the others, which is self-confident and therefore has not needed to be so explicit about its expression. I think as we move into this new century, people’s sense of Englishness will become more articulated and that’s partly because of the mirror that devolution provides us with and because we are becoming more European at the same” (BBC Radio Four’s Brits 10 January 2000 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/596703.stm)

When denied legitimate opportunities to express patriotic feelings people will fall prey to illegitimate ones. Offered the chance to express their natural tribal instincts as English men and women, many will take Britishness as their badge of identity for want of anything else. That is what has been happening with the Olympics.

It might be thought that the Northern Irish , Welsh and Scots would be greatly advantaged over the English because they have their own assemblies and considerable devolved powers, but all devolution has done in the case of the Welsh and Scots is transfer them from a bogus Britishness to a bogus Welshness of Scottishness, national identities which are simply versions of the politically correct multicultural version of Britishness which England is burdened with decked out in the various Celtic colours. Northern Ireland is different in that it has a live sectarian divide and a continuing low-grade insurgency, but is still taking on more and more of the trappings of political correctness.

It is arguable that political correctness is even more complete in Scotland and Wales than it is in England, because the opportunity for inflicting political correctness is greatly enhanced where a small assembly and political class exists because these can be much more readily controlled than larger bodies such as the Westminster Parliament – the Scottish parliament has 129 members, the Welsh assembly 60 and the Northern Irish assembly 108. In addition, the powers reserved to Westminster mean that in those policy areas the political correctness flows into the devolved regions.

Feminism

The political correctness attached to the Olympics was not all about race and ethnicity. There was also a good deal of feminist puffing of female competitors simply because they were female. Shamefully, much of it by men. My prize for the most inane offering goes to the London Evening Standard which screamed “‘Women triumphed at Olympics, now let them deliver in boardroom’” (http://www.standard.co.uk/olympics/olympic-news/women-triumphed-at-olympics-now-let-them-deliver-in-boardroom-8062977.html)

Women’s boxing is a particularly interesting case. The same class of people who would erupt with rage and horror at the idea of violent pornography involving women, have been positively ecstatic at the idea that women had achieved equality in the business of being beaten in public. The woman who won the first boxing gold, Nicola Adams, is black and the media commentators were in danger of rupturing themselves with excitement as she registered twice on the pc approval metre as female and black. The BBC was particularly over-excited: “While Nicola Adams was dancing like Sugar Ray into the history books….” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/19202678).

The black and Asian contribution to the British medal count

The British media did its usual when reporting on any British sporting team: beating the multicultural drum hard with unceasing puffing of the black and Asian medal winners out of all proportion to their actual contribution which was

Blacks

Mo Farah(athletics) 2 golds, Jessica Ennis (athletics) , I gold, Anthony Joshua 1 (boxing ) gold, Nicola Adams (boxing) 1 gold, Louis Smith 1 silver (and one bronze in gymnastics team event, the other members of which team were all white), Christine Ohuruogu (athletics) 1 silver, Anthony Agogo (boxing) 1 bronze,

Asians

Lutalo Muhammad (taekwondo) 1 bronze

Total of individual medals 9 – 5 gold, 3 silver, 1 bronze – plus one bronze as part of a team.

This constitutes a black or Asian hand in just ten out of 65 medals, the ten medals being won by eight competitors. .

Had none of these competitors existed the British medal tally would have been 55 medals, the highest number since 1908 and seven higher than the grand total in 2008. In short, the non-white component of the British team had little effect on the overall standing and perception of the British performance.

There were 43 competitors (in individual and team events) who won the 29 Great Britain gold medals . Four of those were non-white.

The future

It is easy to see how the legion of the politically correct see things unfolding: the population at large will become so indoctrinated with the ceaseless and ever more ruthlessly enforced idea that only heterogeneous society is legitimate. The liberal left hope they can permanently control the natural tribal and patriotic urge through their bogus politically correct British patriotism until the natural instincts of human beings have been eradicated and everyone becomes an obedient robot in the politically correct interest. It is

It is a forlorn hope. The old Adam of tribal feeling is not something which can be eradicated. There can be no politically correct new man any more than Soviet man could be manufactured by the USSR. Tribal feeling may be suppressed; it may be perverted but it is always there, just waiting for propitious circumstances to allow it a natural and healthy expression. Where it is not allowed natural expression it may be wrenched sufficiently out of shape to result in violence as native populations act aggressively because their political circumstances offer no other means of combatting the suppression of their natural instincts and interests. The liberal left gentry should reflect on that.

Liberals in a multicultural denialfest

Robert Henderson

Nine Muslim men living in Rochdale Lancashire – eight from Pakistan and one from Afghanistan – have been convicted of  various offences arising from what  is coyly  described as “street grooming” , but whose honest description would be at best the forced prostitution of girls under the age of consent  and at worst  repeated gang-rape often accomplished when the girls were too drunk to know what was happening. . (The girls were all under the age of  16 -the British age of consent for intercourse – and abuse began when some were as young as 13).

Strikingly,  every one of the  47 girls identified as being the subject of abuse by the gang were white. Cue for liberals to dash into a  frenzy of terrified make-believe as they desperately tried  to convince themselves and the public that vicious and sustained abuse of  exclusively white girls by Asian men  had no racial motivation.   Thankfully there have been some  honourable exceptions in the mainstream media to this wilful self-delusion,  for example, Allison Pearson of the Telegraph  pointed out the absurdity and  dishonesty of  the denial of racism in pithy fashion:

“Nine white men are found guilty of grooming young Asian girls, aged between 13 and 15, whom they picked up on the streets of London. The girls were lured with free fish and chips before being raped or pimped as prostitutes. One Asian girl from a children’s home was used for sex by 20 white men in one night. Police insist the crimes were not “racially motivated”.

Imagine if that story were true. Would you really believe that race was not a factor in those hateful crimes? Do you think that, despite conclusive DNA evidence from a girl raped by two men, the police would have hesitated to press charges because the suspects were white and it could make things a bit sensitive in the white community? Would the Crown Prosecution Service have refused to prosecute, allowing the child-sex ring to flourish for three more anguished years?’ (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/allison-pearson/9254651/Asian-sex-gang-young-girls-betrayed-by-our-fear-of-racism.html)

The tactics of liberal denial

Any normal human being would have no problem in seeing  the very obvious racial element  in the case,   but white liberals have found no difficulty in calling black white.  Some, such as the ineffable Asian MP Keith Vaz , opted for simple denial: “ Right at the start of this trial the BNP were outside demonstrating saying that this was a race issue. I do not believe it is a race issue.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9253978/Keith-Vaz-says-child-sex-ring-case-not-race-issue.html).

A real gem came from the lips of the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester whose force investigated the case:

‘…following the trial at Liverpool Crown Court, Greater Manchester Police’s Assistant Chief Constable Steve Heywood, said: “It just happens that in this particular area and time, the demographics were that these were Asian men.

“However, in large parts of the country we are seeing on-street grooming, child sexual exploitation happening in each of our towns and it isn’t about a race issue.”’ (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9263050/Claiming-Rochdale-grooming-not-about-race-is-fatuous-Trevor-Phillips.html).

A more exquisite example of the religiously pc state senior police officers in Britain have reached would be difficult to find.  I urge  anyone who believes that  there is nationwide “street grooming”  proportionately undertaken by whites to try to find evidence for this. I should be very surprised if they can come up with such evidence. If it did occur one may be sure that it would be given massive prominence by the media and produce hordes of examples when the subject is Googled.   When I tried Googling the subject I drew a blank.

The more sophisticated  amongst the liberal deniers have turned to the well tried and tested liberal left ploys of claiming  that the perpetrators  were not true Muslims and  putting up a smokescreen through the creation of a false equivalence between white and non-white sex offenders.  Here is Aljazeera playing the “not true Muslims” card:

“These men convicted in Rochdale may have been nominally Muslim, but they were clearly not practising the true essence of their faith. Many so-called “Muslim criminals” (as identified by the media) are in fact people who might drink, take drugs or engage in other practices considered haram [“forbidden”]. Individuals who commit abuse are abusers, full stop.” (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/05/201251371618264468.html).

Compare the Rochdale offences with the sex offences committed by Roman Catholic priests. Would anyone want to argue the priests  were only nominally Catholic? I rather doubt it.  It is also true that  Islam, as with any ideology,  sacred or profane, has no “true” version, merely different versions. .

Not to be outdone the Guardian sternly advised that “The defendants in question are at most nominally Muslim. Practising Muslims certainly aren’t supposed to have sex with children.” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/08/asian-sex-gangs-on-street-grooming?newsfeed=true)

The Guardian managed to be both dishonest in its refusal to address the fact that not only the Rochdale case,  but the large majority of this type of group abuse in Britain is conducted by Muslims, and  profoundly wrong when it claims “Practising Muslims certainly aren’t supposed to have sex with children.” Girls of the age used by the Rochdale groups and younger are taken as wives – not merely betrothed – in the Muslim world  and Mohammed himself  took wives of a very young age,  the latter being especially important because Mohammed is the model of the Muslim man.

The false equivalence ploy consists of comparing apples with oranges  and ignoring the widely differing numbers of whites – and Asians – especially in this context  Muslims Asians – in Britain.   Here is an example:

“Martin Narey, former chief executive of children’s charity Barnardo’s, said there was “troubling evidence” that Asians were “overwhelmingly represented” in prosecutions for street grooming and trafficking of girls in towns such as Derby, Leeds, Blackpool, Blackburn, Oldham and Rochdale.

He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “That is not to condemn a whole community, most Asians would absolutely abhor what we have seen in the last few days in the Rochdale trial, and I don’t think this is about white girls.

“It’s sadly because vulnerable girls on the street at night are generally white rather than more strictly-parented Asian girls, but there is a real problem here.”

Mr Narey, who is [also]  a former head of the prison service, added however that sex offenders were “overwhelmingly white” and that there was evidence that those guilty of online grooming were “disproportionately white”. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9253978/Keith-Vaz-says-child-sex-ring-case-not-race-issue.html).

Narey  begins by comparing  the apples of  the girls repeatedly gang-raped  by the Rochdale group  with the oranges of  sex offenders in  general, an utterly meaningless comparison because sex offences  in Britain can be anything from someone downloading anything deemed to be sexual images of a 17 year old girl  to the rape and murder of a toddler. He goes on to state  ‘that there was evidence that those guilty of online grooming were “disproportionately white”’.    This is a claim made by quite a few  people commenting on the case in the media, for example, by Jane Martinson in the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/may/09/rochdale-grooming-trial-race). She  cites her source as the  CPS’ Violence against Women and Girls 2010/11 report (http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/CPS_VAW_report_2011.pdf). What the report actually says is this:

“Ethnicity

In 2010-11, 75% of VAWG  [Violence against Women and Girls] crime defendants  were identified as belonging to the  White British category and 79% were categorised as White (as in the previous year). 6% of defendants were identified as Asian, and a further 6% were identified as Black, similar figures to the previous year . Over half of victim ethnicity was not recorded, so is not reported on within this report. “

As  the population of the UK is around 90% white,   the representation of whites is certainly disproportionate,  disproportionately small that is.   It is also interesting to note that the ethnicity of the victims was not routinely recorded and  consequently no figures  are given in the report  for this aspect of the crimes. Could it be that the percentage of white victims is disproportionately large because blacks and Asians  concentrate on white women and girls and statistics are not kept because of this?

Apart from the misrepresentation of the statistics,   there is the ignoring of  the degree of  the offence.  It is one thing to be sexually abused by a single person , quite another to be gang-raped regularly.   The Rochdale abusers were engaged in the most serious category of sex offences.  Try as I might, I cannot find a case of white men acting in a conspiracy to persistently abuse under-age girls in that fashion.  Nor, perhaps most tellingly, can I find any example of white men gang-raping non-white under-age girls or of individual white men abusing non-white under-age girls.   I can also vouch for the fact that, at least as it is reported in the mainstream media,  sexual abuse of non-whites by whites in Britain  is extremely rare.  For nearly two years I wrote a column entitled The joy of diversity for the  magazine  Right Now! now sadly defunct.  The column dealt with the ever growing ethnic minority criminal mayhem being wreaked on Britain.  To do this I kept a cuttings file  which included  all the serious sexual crimes committed by blacks and Asians.  I also kept a  cuttings file of all the similar  crimes committed by whites.  There was a steady stream of sexual offences by blacks (particularly) and Asians , many of them committed against whites. I  only  once came across a  case involving a white attacker  and a non-white victim.

In the days  following  the claims that there was no racial element to the crimes was increasingly challenged, although  what people thought constituted the racial element was almost invariably a cultural explanation rather than a true racial one.  Trevor Phillips, the black chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission,  eventually joined this new bandwagon  after remaining silent for a week:

“Anybody who says that the fact that most of the men are Asian and most of the children are white is not relevant – that’s just fatuous.

‘“These are closed communities essentially and I worry that in these communities there are people who knew what was going on and didn’t say anything, either because they’re frightened or because they’re so separated from the rest of the communities they think ‘Oh, that’s just how white people let their children carry on, we don’t need to do anything’.”

He said it was important also that the role played by the authorities in the area was properly investigated.

“If anybody in any of the agencies that are supposed to be caring for these children – schools, social services and so on – took the view that being aggressively interventionalist to save these children would lead to the demonisation of some group because of the ethnicity … then it is a national scandal and something that would need to be dealt with urgently,” he said. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9263050/Claiming-Rochdale-grooming-not-about-race-is-fatuous-Trevor-Phillips.html).

Phillips’ intervention is especially interesting because he has a habit of playing what might be described as the liberal’s controlling non-pc card when the absurdities of political correctness become dangerously glaring.  He never becomes honestly non-pc,  just non-pc enough to distract from whatever pc fantasy  is threatening to become a focus for serious dissent amongst native Britons.  Had Phillips been unambiguously honest in this case he would not have waffled on about “closed communities”  or  attributed their general silence on the subject to a contemptuous “Oh, that’s just how white people let their children carry on”.  Instead he would have asked why  the “communities” were closed or questioned exactly how those in these “communities” could have honestly  believed that the sexual exploitation of under-age girls, some as young as 13, was acceptable. He would have asked why all the girls were white rather than being drawn from vulnerable girls of all races.  If Phillips had been really daring he would have raised the  most difficult question of all, namely, in what sense are ethnic minority groups meaningfully  British if they see themselves as so culturally separate from the British mainstream that they will happily accept the abuse of young girls drawn from the native white population?

The crimes were objectively racist

The objective facts of the case say the  Rochdale  crimes were racially motivated.  It was white girls who were exclusively chosen.  If the choice  of  girls  had not  been  decided by race, ethnicity or religion, a mixture of races and ethnicities  amongst the victims would be expected.  The culprits could have chosen Asian girls, including Muslims from their own ethnic group .  If they  had decided they would not use Muslims – although making  that choice would have fallen within the definition of racism that is presently used – but everyone else was fair game,  they could have gone after non-Muslim  Asians from the Subcontinent  such as Sikhs and Hindus, Asians of far Eastern ancestry and  black  as well as white girls.

The claim commonly made by  Asians  that Muslim girls or Asian girls generally  are strictly controlled by their families  whereas white girls  are not and, consequently, white girls are targeted for abuse  simply because they are available and Asian girls are not on offer  will not stand up to scrutiny. Most, possibly all, of the white girls abused in the Rochdale case were in local authority care or from seriously troubled homes .  These were girls who had effectively been left without any adult  guidance or supervision. There are substantial numbers  of black and Asian  girls in the same position.  Moreover, because  ethnic minorities  in Britain are overwhelmingly  concentrated in the large urban areas  rather than distributed  throughout the country as is the case with whites,  the likelihood of vulnerable black or Asian girls being available in or close to the areas where Asian abusers live is high. This is the case with the Rochdale  abusers, Rochdale being part of Greater Manchester which has a large and variegated non-white population.

There is also the contemptuous  attitude Muslim men often have  towards white women to bring into the equation. Here is Allison Pearson again:

“I spoke to Mr Danczuk [the local MP]  yesterday, and he strenuously disputes claims that this is a one-off case, or even a recent phenomenon. The grooming of white girls by a small sub-section of the Pakistani community was being discussed in Blackburn council 15 years ago. Recently, the MP was outraged when male relatives of the accused in a similar child-sex case came to his constituency surgery to ask for support. “They spoke about white women in an exceptionally derogatory way. I nearly threw them out.”

Danczuk’s reported comments also demonstrate  the most shameful  aspect of this affair: the persistent refusal of the authorities – everyone from the local politicians and  the council care workers to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)  – to  honestly address the complaints of sexual abuse because of a fear of being thought racist and most probably a fear , at least at the political level,  of having such an incendiary topic – immigrants targeting white British girls  for forced sex – brought before a  public who are already deeply concerned with the effects of mass post-war immigration. Tellingly, the CPS prosecutor who  overturned the original CPS decision not to prosecute was a Muslim, Nazir Afzal, whose race and ethnicity protected him from charges of racism.

Complaints have been heard from non-Muslim Asians  whose origins lie in the Indian subcontinent – primarily Sikhs and Hindus –  that  the routine media description of the Rochdale gang as Asian  is misleading because it  tars all Asians with the same brush when it is only Muslims who  were involved and are  rumoured to be involved in other similar instances of abuse. They may have a point. Despite assiduous use of search engines I cannot find any instances of Sikh or Hindu gang grooming of  girls. Interestingly, in my searches  I  came across Hindu and Sikh complaints from 2011 that Sikh and Hindu girls are being targeted by Muslims:

“January 11, 2011

Poush Shukla Saptami, Kaliyug Varsha 5112

Amritsar (Punjab): A day after UKs’ former home secretary Jack Straw blamed some Pakistani Muslim men for targeting “vulnerable” White girls sexually, UK’s Hindu and Sikh organizations also publicly accused Muslim groups of the same offence.

Straw, in an interview to the BBC recently, had said, “…there is a specific problem which involves Pakistani heritage men…who target vulnerable young white girls…they see these young women, white girls who are vulnerable, some of them in care … who they think are easy meat.”

Feeling emboldened by Straw’s statement, UK’s Hindu and Sikh organizations have also come in open and accused some Pakistani men of specifically targeting Hindu and Sikh girls. “This has been a serious concern for the last decade,” said Hardeep Singh of Network of Sikh Organizations (NSO) while talking to TOI on Monday.

Sikhs and Hindus are annoyed that Straw had shown concern for White girls and not the Hindu and the Sikh teenage girls who have been coaxed by some Pakistani men for sex and religious conversion.

“Straw does other communities a disservice by suggesting that only white girls were targets of this predatory behaviour. We raised the issue of our girls with the previous government and the police on several occasions over the last decade. This phenomenon has been there because a minority of Islamic extremists view all ‘non believers’ as legitimate targets,” said director NSO Inderjit Singh.

Targeted sexual offences and forced conversions of Hindu and Sikh girls was not a new phenomenon in the UK, said Ashish Joshio from Media Monitoring group. 

“This has been going on for decades in the UK . Young Muslim men have been boasting about seducing the Kaffir (unbeliever) women. The Hindu and the Sikh communities must be commended for showing both restraint and maturity under such provocation,” he added.

Hardeep said that in 2007, The Hindu Forum of Britain claimed that hundreds of Hindu and Sikh girls had been first romantically coaxed and later intimidated and converted by Muslim men. (http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/11088.html).

This strikes me as  differing in type from the abuse of white girls described in the Rochdale trial, because the Sikh and Hindu girls seem to have been recruited for conversion  with sex used a  tool to achieve this rather than simply being used as  sexual vessels.  Nonetheless, if the report is true –I say if because of the considerable animosity between Muslims and Sikhs and Hindus and the general appetite amongst ethnic minorities for parading their victimhood means  it is best to be cautious about the veracity of the claims – the reported behaviour does display the same contemptuous mentality towards women shown in the abuse of  the white victims in the Rochdale case.

The attitude  of  one of the Rochdale defendants, a 59-year-old man who was not named for legal reasons during the court hearing (most probably because naming him would have identified a minor involved in the case)   gives  a flavour of the mentality which both drove them to commit the crimes and to excuse themselves:

“The man seen as the ringleader, a 59-year-old who cannot be named for legal reasons, was jailed for a total of 19 years for conspiracy, two counts of rape, aiding and abetting a rape, sexual assault and a count of trafficking within the UK for sexual exploitation.

The defendant was previously banned from court because of his threatening behaviour and for calling the judge a “racist bastard”.

Simon Nichol, defending, earlier said his client did not wish to attend the sentencing hearing and had ordered the barrister not to put any mitigation before the judge on his behalf.

“He has objected from the start for being tried by an all white jury and subsequent events have confirmed his fears,” Mr Nichol said.

“He does not take back any of the comments he has made to your honour, to the jury, or to anyone else in the court during the course of the trial.

“He believes his convictions have nothing to do with justice but result from the faith and the race of the defendants.

“He further believes that society failed the girls in this case before the girls even met them and now that failure is being blamed on a weak minority group.” (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/crime/arrogant-to-the-end-as-rochdale-child-sex-ring-leader-snubs-sentencing-of-racist-court-7727757.html).

So there you have it, in his mind it was not him but society which is  to blame – and by implication white society and nothing to do with his part of the UK population –  and the only reason he was being tried and convicted was racism on the part of ol’ whitey.

The nature of Islam

The predominance of sub continental Muslims in this type of crime raises a question, what is it that makes them and not non-Muslims  from the same region  commit this type of crime?   (It could be that this type of crime is committed by, for example,  Sikhs and Hindus, but there does not appear to be any evidence for it). If that is the true situation it could be that Islam itself encourages the mentality  displayed by the Rochdale offenders  to develop.

The Koran makes no bones about the subordinate position of women by

1.  Sanctioning polygamy – up to four wives  for any Muslim man, although  Mohammed was given a special dispensation to have an unlimited number  and had a reported nine wives plus slave-girls :

“Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives whom you have granted dowries and the slave-girls whom Allah has given you as booty; the daughters of your paternal and maternal uncles and of your paternal and maternal aunts who fled with you; and the other women who gave themselves to you and whom you wished to take in marriage. This privilege is yours alone, being granted to no other believer. (Sura (chapter):  The Confederate Tribes).

2.  Explicitly saying women are subordinate to men:

“’Men  have authority over women because  Allah  has  made  the  one superior to the other,  and  because   they  spend  their wealth to  maintain  them. “(Sura   ‘Women’). 

3. Sanctioning the corporal punishment of wives by husbands:

“Good  women are obedient.  They guard their unseen  parts  because Allah guarded them.  As for those from whom  you fear disobedience,  admonish them and send them  to  beds  apart and beat them.”  (Sura   ‘Women’). 

4. Allotting a lesser portion of any inheritance to women than is allotted to their male relatives:

“A male shall inherit twice as much as a female…”  (Sura   ‘Women’). 

5. Enforcing  Islam onto non-Muslim women if they wish to marry a Muslim:

“’You shall not wed pagan women, unless they embrace    the faith. A believing slave-girl is better than an  idolatress…’ (Sura ‘The Cow’).

6.  The idea of slave-girls as sexual toys  given by Allah as rewards to the faithful as in the passage cited in 1 above:  “the slave girls whom Allah has given you as booty…”

The general attitude  towards women in the Koran is epitomised by the scorn poured on Arab  pagans who worshipped female deities  and Angels who were the daughters of Allah : “Would Allah choose daughters for himself and sons for you?”  (Sura Ornaments of Gold).

It might be objected that quotes are translations and the original meaning or nuances may be lost or distorted.  Well, the quotes are all taken from the Penguin English translation by N J Dawood, a native Arabic speaker.  In addition, while it is true that any translation presents difficulties,  it is a fact that most Muslims cannot read Arabic and consequently have to rely on translations or word of mouth from Imams  and are  consequently equally subject to translational deficiencies or debates as any non-Muslim reading a translation.  Indeed, many will take their knowledge of the Koran from translations such as that of Dawood.   I have also  looked at another couple of translations and they do not differ greatly on the most contentious passages and clearly  give sanction to behaviour to the idea that women are subordinate to men by Allah’s word and women may be used as men want within the limits decreed in the Koran.

It is easy to see how  any Muslim, even a white western convert, would have difficulty in subscribing to the idea of sexual equality if they were sincere in their faith.  There is not for the Muslim the luxury of re-interpreting the Koran  at will as modern Christians do with the Bible,  because it is the literal word of God  transmitted to Mohammed by the Angel Gabriel.  There are disputes within Islam about how the Koran and supporting texts such as the Hadith should  be interpreted,  but this is generally interpretation  of what  a particular passage or practice means in literal terms  – a good example would be the punishment for adultery which is given at different points  in the Koran  as stoning to death and flogging: the interpreter of the Koran has to decide which is the correct punishment not whether there should be a physical or indeed any punishment for adultery.  Consequently, unlike  mainstream Christianity in Britain, there can be no convenient shrugging off of passages in the Koran  incompatible with modern Western society because they are deemed to be either  unimportant expressions of the social state of former times rather than the core beliefs of the religion  or, more fancifully,  by claiming that they  were not meant as  literal instructions to the faithful.  It is also a  fact that the Koran gives much less scope for plausible “fudging”  of  inconvenient passages (for liberals)  than the Bible,   because it is  both much shorter with fewer contradictions and is, for  Muslims, a  transmission from God  through a single man rather than being a collection of writings -drawn  from many sources, times , places  and people  – working out a religious destiny, as is the case with the Bible.

Any Muslim man would be faced with a dilemma if he wished to adhere strictly to the Koran whilst living in a Western society  because the Koran instructs him to behave in ways which run strictly counter to the values of Western society, including the position of  women.  It is true that  there is  Islamic tradition which require Muslims in countries which are not Islamic to abide by the laws of the society in which  they live, but there is no central Islamic authority which gives such traditions the force of universal  application such as exists with the Catholic church.  Alternative interpretations are handed down by different Islamic authorities.  A Muslim could quite  reasonably  choose an interpretation which suited strict Islamic observance in a non-Islamic country , arguing that it was what the Koran  required and to do any other would be the act of a poorly observant  Muslim.

That would the case of a sincere devout Muslim. But the fact that the Koran gives specific authority to behave in ways, including the  physical chastisement of women ,  which are incompatible with a secular society  such as modern Britain  means it  also gives a green light to less honest  or sincere Muslim men to do what they will with women  simply because it suits their purposes and carnal desires.

It might be objected that men who are not Muslims in many societies have similar ideas on the condition of women.   Most dramatically, the existence of “honour killings”  of women who do not conform to  patriarchal customs  is widespread amongst Sikhs and Hindus and the casual treatment of women by black men is legendary.  But what these non-Muslim men do not have is a religious sanction for such behaviour.  There is a good deal of difference between custom, powerful as that can be, and explicit permission from God, which is the most potent of emotional intoxicants and sanctions.   There is also a qualitative difference between “honour killings” where a female member of the family  goes against  the cultural norms of the ethnic group by , for example,  forming a relationship with someone who is not a member of the group or refusing to accept an arranged marriage,  and taking young girls who are outside the group for sexual abuse.  In the case of the “honour killing”, the act is directed against someone within the group and is intended to preserve the cultural norms of the group. The taking of girls from outside the group is simply the satisfying of sexual desire.

The  age of the girls abused may also have something to do with Islam.  As mentioned previously, girls of the age of those abused by the Rochdale defendants are frequently married in the Muslim world.  In addition, the Koran’s sanctioning of slavegirls  as sexual toys  given by Allah “as booty” to deserving Muslim men may also come into play. It would not be that massive an emotional  stretch for a Muslim man to see white girls as a modern version of slavegirl booty.

There is something else in Islam which may have contributed to the crimes.  The Koran is extremely aggressive towards non-Muslims and makes no bones about the fact that Muslims are the chosen people of Allah. Here are a few example quotes:

‘As  for the unbelievers,  the fire of Hell  awaits  them.  Death shall not deliver them,  nor shall its               torment be ever lightened for them.  Thus shall the  thankless  be  rewarded.’  (Sura ‘The  Creator’).

‘Prophet,  make  war  on the  unbelievers  and  the  hypocrites and deal vigorously with them.  Hell  is their home.  (Sura ‘Repentance’).

‘When the sacred months are over slay the idolators  wherever you find them. Arrest them,  besiege them, and  lie in ambush  everywhere for them.’  (Sura ‘’Repentance’).

 ‘Because of their iniquity, we forbade the Jews the  good  things  which  were  formerly  allowed  them;  because  time after time they debarred others  from  the  path of Allah;  because they practice usury  –  although they were forbidden it – and cheat  others  of their possessions.’ (Sura ‘Women’).

The final quote is especially telling because the Jews are one of the peoples of the book who are supposedly given special protection under Islam.

As with the subordination of women, the fact that the Koran – which is the literal word of God for Muslims –  explicitly and repeatedly  states that Islam  and its adherents are above the rest of humanity will feed the idea that Muslims in non-Islamic countries should both remain separate from the majority population and have the right to use members of the population who are not Muslim in a manner which they would not countenance for their fellow Muslims.

How ideologies fail   

The reason why this type of racist abuse  has been allowed to grow is the ever more paralysing effect   political correctness  and its component  multiculturalism has on British society.  Whites, especially white Britons,  have become at best deeply afraid and paranoid about doing something which could get them held up as a racist and at worst have succumbed to the incessant politically correct propaganda so that they believe ethnic minorities are in some curious way granted dispensation from the dictates of both traditional Western morality  and, ironically,   the supposedly essential  maxims of political correctness.  The most grotesque example of the mentality I can think of is the case of a young white girl Rhea Page who was attacked by four Somali  girls whilst walking with her boyfriend. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2070562/Muslim-girl-gang-kicked-Rhea-Page-head-yelling-kill-white-slag-FREED.html#ixzz1flw8TY6p).   The attack was vicious and sustained – it can be viewed at  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgIN4kBsNRg –  and the Somalis were  screaming “white bitch” and “white slag yet the judge ruled there was no racist motive and  also refused to jail the Somalis on the grounds that they had taken alcohol which was not part of their culture.

What will happen now? There will be  further action by the police and the CPS on the type of offences exposed in Rochdale – further arrests have already been made (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9261748/Arrests-made-in-second-Rochdale-sex-grooming-scandal.html), but  the question is not whether one or two more trials will be held as tokens  but whether the grip of political correctness  can be loosened.  It is just possible that this is happening already without any conscious decision being made to do so by those with power.

Secular ideologies never  stand the  test  of time if they become the elite ideology.  Marxism is the classic example,  both because of the scope of its ostensible implementation and the length of time it existed, or  arguably still exists in the case of China and North Korea. Such ideologies  fail because they never accord with reality. They may have some truths but  all seriously clash with what is.  This means that those dependent on the ideology have to revise either the reality to accord better with reality or tell lies to cover the gap between the ideology and reality.

Ideologies are also revised to fit the ambitions of individuals and the circumstances of particular societies.  These often further remove the ideology from reality. The first great Marxist revision was the denial by Lenin  that  the proletarian revolution could only take place when a large  degree of industrialisation had created an industrial proletariat. The second great revision was Stalin’s acceptance that “socialism in one country”  had to replace the  internationalist  credo of Marx  for at least a period of time.   To those breaches in Marx’s  system was added the ever growing corruption of the Soviet elite and the demoralisation of the people.  The upshot was that Soviet propaganda became ever more absurd as the reality of Soviet life jarred ever more with fictitious official reports of soaring harvests and industrial production.  This growing discord between what Soviet citizens experienced and what they were told was happening was an important  agent  in the fall of the Soviet Union.

Political correctness is divorced from reality more emphatically than any other dominant secular ideology of the past century.   Marxism, even in its revised Leninist and Stalinist  forms,  at least appealed to a widespread  human desire for equality of material condition and social status, or at least a desire for no great inequality.   Even  at its most pure political correctness asks human beings to deny vitally  important natural human behaviours  by pretending that no distinction can be meaningfully or morally be  made between races, ethnicities, cultures,  religions, sexes or sexual  behaviours.  It seeks to treat all members of homo sapiens as interchangeable, sees  the continuing idea of nations as pernicious and insists that no element of the universal and natural human trait of tribalism be countenanced.

The pure version of political correctness would be very damaging and seriously divorced  from reality. But the version of political correctness that actually exists is not pure and is a political recipe for widespread political unrest. It applies double standards when dealing with different racial and ethnic groups and has been reduced to no more than a means of privileging some groups over others. As those who are privileged are invariably the minorities and those disadvantaged  invariably the majority native populations,  the lies needed to produce  an official narrative in  accord with political correctness become ever more implausible  – the Rhea Page case and the attitude towards the Rochdale  defendants  are stark  examples – and the anger within the majority native populations grows.  There is a growing possibility that at least the multicultural part of political correctness may come tumbling down under the weight of its own fantastic absurdity.