Tuesday, 16 September 2014

The Muslim Council of Britain's campaign for more inaction on extremism

[The Deputy Secretary of the MCB, Harun Khan.]

The Muslim Council of Britain (the UK's CAIR) is at it again.

Over one thousand five hundred (1,500) British Muslims had already travelled to Syria and Iraq - in order to engage in jihad and terrorism - before any of David Cameron's new policies against Muslim extremism had been put into action. Now think of the reality of the MCB's most recent position. There are over 1,500 British Muslim terrorists or jihadists - either in the UK or about to return - and the MCB is busy warning the government to keep its hands off Muslims... or else there'll be, eh, more Muslim extremism.

It seems that every time the government or other agencies take any concrete or real action against Islamic extremists - or even against Islamic terrorists - in the UK, the MCB has a serious problem with it. (See the MCB's recent 'Muslim Council of Britain Responds to The Times'.)

For example:

i) The MCB had a problem with the actions against Islamic terrorists in the UK between 2005 and 2010. It said that such actions “could cause [or did cause] extremism within the community”.
ii) The MCB had a problem with the investigations and actions against the Islamisation of British schools. It said such investigations and actions “could cause [or did cause] extremism in the Muslim community”.
iii) The MCB had a problem with the emphasis on the Muslim and Pakistani nature of sexual-grooming gangs. It said such an emphasis “could cause [or did cause] extremism in the Muslim community”.

It's almost as if the MCB doesn't want any action – of any kind – to be taken. Now why would an organisation which is part of the Muslim Brotherhood - a worldwide Islamist movement - not want any action to be taken against any section (extreme or otherwise) of the Muslim community?... Do I really need to answer that?

Talk to the MCB

The MCB has rather generously offered its services to the British government, despite the fact that the Conservative Party cut its links to the organisation in 2010. The Labour Party also cut its links to this Islamist group in 2009, only to restore them in 1210. In fact, in 2007, David Cameron himself condemned the “hardline” members of the MCB. And the MCB's grandstanding (with it's self-proclaimed “500 affiliated organisations”) was said, by Cameron, to simply be a result of it having the “loudest voice”: a voice which “crowd[ed] out other, genuinely moderate, voices”.

Even the website Onislam - ironically reporting from Cairo - mentions that previous relationship between the Labour Party and the MCB. It says that the “MCB had a constructive relationship with the previous Labour government”. (Is that why they broke up?) However, it then goes on to quote the MCB's deputy secretary, Harun Khan (see image above), who says that it has been "very difficult to have any formal engagement at all" since David Cameron came to power in 2010...

The MCB's secretary general, Saleem Kidwai, also pleads with the government in this way:

"I would say to the government, you must talk to the Muslim Council of Britain because it is the largest organization."

"You can talk to think-tanks but they are not the grassroots groups – the MCB has got the mandate from 500 organizations who represent Muslims from all walks of life.”

The MCB's deputy secretary, Harun Khan (mentioned earlier), also rather arrogantly said (quoted in The Guardian) that the British government "need[s] to be talking to us and others to understand what it is that's leading these boys down this route".

And why is that, Mr Khan? Is it because the Islamist MCB will tell the government that such Muslim extremism is all down to, well, Western governments and non-Muslims generally? More specifically, the MCB will mention British foreign policy towards Israel and the recent events in Gaza..... But hold on a minute! The MCB will also cite British foreign policy on Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Egypt, Syria and so on.

And then the MCB will get onto the sins of non-Muslims in the UK itself.

It will say that Muslim extremism is caused by (amongst many other things) these things:

i) not allowing Muslims to follow sharia law
ii) not allowing the burka and hijab to be worn in the workplace
iii) there not being Islamic prayer rooms at every place of work
iv) not banning “Islamophobic” movements and individuals such as the EDL and Liberty GB's Paul Weston from marching and speaking; a well as not banning The Satanic Verses, that film on Muhammad and much else.
v) not allowing more Islamic schools
vi) not allowing more about Islam to be taught in non-Islamic schools... and so on and so on.

This time the MCB is responding to what David Cameron outlined on the 1st of September. More specifically:

i) the new plans to increase and tighten-up anti-terrorism measures
ii) giving the police temporary powers to confiscate the passports of Muslims bound for Iraq and Syria
iii) stopping Muslim terrorists or jihadists from returning to the UK (from Syria and Iraq)
iv) the possibility of relocating suspected terrorists and jihadists to other countries

Harun Khan has explicitly said what he doesn't want the government to do on any of this. He doesn't want the government to legislate against Muslims; to monitor Muslims; to strip Muslims of their passports; or even to interview Muslims. In other words, he doesn't really want the government to do anything. Or in Khan's own words:

"Part of the problem is the constant talk of legislation, harassment and monitoring, stripping people of their passports.

"This is what's leading young people towards radicalism."

If the MCB could run and control such government “anti-extremist” programmes, it would no doubt teach the jihadists and terrorists to focus their energies and anger in a political or Islamist direction. Say, in the direction of the Muslim Brotherhood and its children: such as Hamas, CAIR and the MCB itself.

Muslim Extremism is a Response to Action Against Muslim Extremism

The MCB's Harun Khan intentionally gets the causal arrow the wrong way around.

He says that the “constant talk of legislation.... monitoring” and “striping people of their passports” causes Muslim extremism. Yet, as everyone knows, these are responses to Muslim “radicalism” and extremism, not the causes of it.

The MCB also says that the new measures announced by David Cameron will widen the gap between the Muslim community and the government. Here again the MCB has the causal arrow the wrong way around. David Cameron and many others are responding to an already wide gap between the Muslim community and non-Muslims.

And, not surprisingly, it's the MCB itself which is contributing to that widening gap between Muslims and non-Muslims with its constant activism for more sharia law, more Islamic schools and, in this instance, less action against Muslim extremism and terrorism.

Another obvious point to make – blindingly obvious in fact – is that Muslim extremism increases when no action is taken. The massive cases of the Muslim grooming-gangs and the Islamisation of British schools graphically display that. But it's also true of Islamic terrorism and Islamic extremism in general.

So, again, how does the MCB attempt to pull off this neat and duplicitous trick? Simple. It's a kind of blackmail which says that any actions taken against Islamic extremism will cause Islamic extremism.

This is not a new gimmick.

Lord Ahmed, for example, once threatened “civil conflict” if actions were taken against Islamic terrorism in Birmingham. In both cases, Lord Ahmed and the MCB want precisely zero action to be taken against Muslim extremism.

Now why is that?

Friday, 12 September 2014

Unity Vigil: Justice for the victims of Rotherham’s grooming-gangs

The image used for the Unity Vigil (organised by Unite Against Fascism) via Facebook. 

The title of this piece has been stolen from the activist group which is holding a ‘vigil’ in Rotherham. The full title of the vigil is: ‘Unity Vigil: Justice for the victims – don’t let the racist EDL divide us’. (This group will be holding its vigil at All Saints Square – in Rotherham - at 1pm.)

Many of the people who put on these ‘vigils’ are the same people who violently demonstrate at Unite Against Fascism (UAF) counter-demos. In fact this vigil has been organised by UAF! (There will no doubt also be a violent “anti-fash” demo somewhere else in Rotherham.)

Thus the “peace” or “vigil” bit is a complete gimmick.

Trotskyists (now often called “progressives”) are some of the most violent, narrow-minded and intolerant people on earth.

And just as the (Trotskyist-run) Stop the War Coalition (StWC) is only against wars carried out by Western “capitalist states”; so this group will only be against racism, violence and division if that racism, violence and division is carried out by white groups and white individuals (as the grooming case shows).

Why didn’t the organizers of the Unity Vigil  for “the victims” rally in their defense three weeks ago? Or two months ago? Or, indeed, ten years ago?

The answer to that is simple.

It’s because this vigil is not really about the victims of Muslim grooming-gangs at all. It’s actually a response to the national and very vocal responses to the Muslim grooming-gangs. In other words, the vigil is actually against the the English Defense League (EDL) and about the “fight against racism”. It’s not about the victims of Muslim grooming-gangs. These activists helped make these young girls become victims in the first place. They were just as much victims of  their pious and zealous anti-racism as they were the victims of the anti-white and anti-kuffar grooming gangs!
Again, there have never been any vigils like this in Rotherham before the recent report even though the people of Rotherham – including some of the people who are holding this vigil – have known about the grooming-gangs for years.

The only way there will be “justice for the victims” is by punishing the type of people who are holding this vigil. These people are part of the problem. They – or people like them – are at least partly responsible for what happened in Rotherham. And the fact they are still talking about “racists dividing us” shows that they haven’t learnt a single lesson from all of this. As mentioned, they are part of the problem. In fact some of those on the vigil will be Rotherham social workers, council workers, trade unionists, Leftist activists and the like: the very people who attempted to cover the whole thing up.

You’ll also see that UAF rejects most of the findings of the reports, newspaper articles, testimonies and everything else written and said outside of the revolutionary Left. The bottom line is, then, that the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and UAF would like to go back to the good old days which existed before the Muslim and Pakistani nature of these grooming-gangs became common knowledge.

(See UAF’s ‘Justice for the victims of child exploitation – we will not let the racists divide us’. Note that UAF doesn’t even use the words ‘grooming gangs’, never mind ‘Muslim grooming gangs’. This is the deceitful Leftist fusion of general sexual abuse with with specifics of grooming-gangs.)

The Road to Rotherham

It started out as the authorities saying:

It’s a sexual-abuse problem: not an Asian problem. [Still the UAF-SWP line.]

Then things changed - just a bit - to:

It may partly be an Asian problem; though it’s also a problem which crosses all ethnic groups.

Now, or in the last few weeks, we’ve reached:

Yes, it’s a Pakistani problem; though it’s also a problem which crosses all ethnic groups.

The truth, however, is that it’s a Muslim problem.

Most sex-groomers are Pakistani simply because most Muslims in the UK are Pakistani.

If most Muslims in the UK were Arabic, north African, etc., then most Muslim groomers would have been Arabic, etc. Indeed, the sex-grooming - along with the street-rape - in places like Malmö, Stockholm, Marseilles, Paris, Oslo (the “rape capital of Europe”), etc. are hardly every carried out by Pakistani Muslims. In these cases, the culprits are mainly Arabic, north African, Somalian, Turkish, etc. Muslims. And even in the UK, Kurdish, north African, Turkish and other Muslims have been involved.

The other cop-out is that the groomers “are all young lads”.

So now it’s an “youthful irresponsibility” argument.

That is rubbish too. Many of the perpetrators have been in their 30s and 40s. In fact some of them (sometimes their uncles and even granddads) have been in their 50s and 60s. In addition, now the Daily Telegraph is informing us that ‘Imams promote grooming rings’.

Now for the cliché – used by such organisations as the Rotherham Advertiser and of course UAF – that the EDL and other groups are “exploiting this issue”. (Since the EDL was set up to confront precisely these kinds of issue, this is a funny thing to say.)

Well, the only reason why England’s politically-correct Great and Good finally responded to all this was because of external (external to the council, police, MPs, etc.) pressure from people and groups which had the courage and conviction to tell it as it is.

Even Bradford’s Telegraph & Argus, or Jim Greenhalf, mentioned (in 2012) the English Defence League. He said that the EDL has “underlined the point” that “those convicted in Keighley and Greater Manchester are Muslims”.


However, as far back as 2010, Chief Inspector Alan Edwards said:

"To stop this type of crime you need to start everyone talking about it but everyone’s be too scared to address the ethnicity factor.

"No one wants to stand up and say that Muslim Pakistani guys in some parts of the country are recruiting young white girls and passing them around their relatives for sex, but we need to stop being worried about the racial complication."

Chief Inspector Alan Edwards
 Chief Inspector Alan Edwards via www.bpp.org

That was in 2010. Though it has only been in the last few weeks that the newspapers have started using the word ‘Pakistani’ (instead of ‘Asian’). And that was mainly because a well-respected academic produced a report on the Rotherham scandal. So it seems that the authorities (including national and regional newspapers) simply didn’t trust or respect what the people – not just the EDL – had to say about the the Muslim grooming-gangs.

Finally, many of the people and organisations which are now pointing the finger at the authorities in Rotherham – from the Daily Mail to the Conservative government – are carrying on with the with the same problematic mind-set: that of refusing to accept the Islamic/Muslim nature of what has happened.

If it was wrong not to point out the Pakistani nature of these gangs, why is it still right to ignore the Islamic/Muslim reality of them? What, exactly, is the difference?

Loonwatch & Islamophobia Watch: Why Leftists are Islamophiles

[Bob Pitt, formerly of the Workers Revolutionary Party and various other Trotskyist sects. Now the proprietor or Managing Director of Islamophobia Watch. Photo Source: libertygb.org.uk]

Bob Pitt’s website - Islamophobia Watch - is very much like the American website, Loonwatch. Both are either outright Leftist outfits or Leftist-Muslim collaborations.

[Nathan Lean via Twitter]

It’s also highly likely that they are funded by Muslim individuals, Islamic institutions and Muslim states. It’s even more likely that America’s Loonwatch is financed by Georgetown University. Or at least it’s funded by the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (CMCU) at which one Loonwatch contributor, Nathan Lean, has had – and still has – strong connections. (Here is a link to Lean speaking at the CMCU.)

Loonwatch may also get funding from the American Academy of Religion, the Middle East Studies Association and Alternative Perspectives and Global Concerns (APGC). Why? Again, because Loonwatch’s main contributor, Nathan Lean, is also connected to all these institutions. No doubt other Loonwatch writers are connected to the aforementioned institutions too.

It is said that Nathan Lean is Loonwatch’s ‘Garibaldi‘. (See this link for more information on Mr Lean.) Nathan Lean has also written for the Huffington Post, the Los Angeles Times and New York Daily News. More relevantly, Nathan Lean is Editor-in-Chief for Aslan Media (“We bring you the Middle East”). (Here’s Lean doing a video on – guess what – “Islamophobia” for Aslan Media.)

As for the aforesaid Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal. He’s a member of the Saudi royal family. He’s keen on funding “interfaith” and “Islamic studies” in the non-Muslim world, as is the Saudi state generally.

[Nathan Lean’s book, The Islamophobia Industry.]

And since there is zero – repeat, zero! – interfaith and religious tolerance in Saudi Arabia, one can only conclude that what people like Alwaleed Bin Talal mean by “interfaith” is the teaching of Islam to the kuffar. Or, in other words, Islamic dawah (i.e., proselytising).

Surely Nathan Lean and the rest have already worked this out.

And that’s where Leftist politics comes in.

As with Islamophobia Watch, the reason why such Leftists are pleased to receive lots of cash from rich royals – who run autocratic regimes with poor human rights records – must surely be because they (or revolutionary Leftism generally) have something to gain from these cynical and opportunistic arrangements.

In any case, the main stylistic difference between Loonwatch and Islamophobia Watch is that the latter is more tabloid in style in that it doesn’t even attempt to defend its positions (if it has any); whereas Loonwatch at least attempts to argue its case – though it does so with vitriol, numerous Stalinist accusations of “madness” (or lunacy) towards literally all critics of Islam and some rather pathetic and snooty college sarcasm.

(See my 'Loonwatch: "the mooslims! they're heere!"' at American Thinker.)


Bob Pitt is the unscrupulous, opportunistic and principle-less (excepting the principle of “smashing the capitalist state at all costs”) writer for Islamophobia Watch. (See Bob Pitt performing for Muslims in this YouTube video.)

Bob Pitt is probably one of the most effective kafir (an atheist and Marxist materialist) enabler of Islam and Islamism in the UK.

Both Bob Pitt and the writers for Loonwatch don’t only defend Muslims no matter what they say or do. They mainly defend Islamists and Muslim fundamentalists no matter what they say or do. (Such white, middle-class Trotskyists and “progressives” – if they are distinct – classify moderate and reformist Muslims as “Uncle Toms”.)

The logic is simple.

If Bob Pitt didn’t defend every single bad deed and bad belief of every single Islamist and Muslim fundamentalist, then that would work against his own cause – that of “radicalisation” (or revolution). This man thinks – believe it or not – that enabling Islamists, etc. will help further the (Leftist) radicalisation of the UK. It will help Trotskyists like him “destabilise the capitalist state”.

It may seem like madness itself for an atheist Marxist to support reactionaries, religious fundamentalists and misogynists. However, the help that Bob Pitt gives – via Islamophobia Watch – is given for a reason. That reason being that it will help destabilise British society, as well as the “capitalist state” itself.

Any crisis or trouble helps the Revolutionary Cause. That’s why Trotskyists like Bob Pitt have always believed that the “worse things are; the better they are”.

Defending Muslims who believe in genital mutilation, sharia blasphemy law and terrorism – within the UK – will make things worse for most of us. Nonetheless, they will make things much better for International Socialists like Bob Pitt; as well as for National Socialists (Nazis) and Islamists.

All this explains this middle-class Leftist’s daily and unquestioning support for Muslim extremists no matter what they say or do. His own cause (radicalisation-through-destabilisation) benefits from such opportunism and unscrupulousness.

And that is also partly why Marxists – for the last hundred and thirty years or so – secretly loved it when there was mass unemployment or the latest “capitalist crisis”. They loved it and they still love it! Such disasters provide the breeding grounds for radicalisation. They’re also helpful when it comes to recruitment into Trotskyist/Marxist parties and movements (such as into the SWP-UAF, Respect, the Stop the War Coalition, etc.).

That’s why Marxists have said that there’s a “capitalist crisis” almost every year for the past one hundred years or more.

As I said, revolutionaries like Bob Pitt want capitalist crises! They want mass unemployment. Just as they want Islamic agitation, extremism and possibly even Muslim grooming-gangs. All these things contribute to their “fight against capitalism”.

And all this is at the heart of Bob Pitt’s Islamophobia Watch and Nathan Lean’s Loonwatch; not any deep love of Islam or even of Muslims.



Nathan Lean has two personas.

One: a vicious and loud-mouthed Leftist. (It's beyond comprehension that this man uses the word 'hate' all the time - as in 'hate blog'.)

Two: an interfaith academic.

The former preaches violence, direct action, hacking and the denial of free speech.

The latter preaches religious and political pluralism, peace, tolerance and equality.

The latter contradicts the former in almost every respect. This basically means that Nathan Lean is a consummate hypocrite.

  • Thumbnail

And here's Lean being sexist, vicious and threatening against Robert Spencer. Still, like the Gulag, it was all for a good cause:

Wednesday, 10 September 2014

Socialist Worker (SWP) on Saturday's EDL Demo in Rotherham

Members of Unite Against Fascism (UAF) and local people gather in a park in Tower Hamlets ahead of a demonstration by the right-wing EDL (English Defence League) in London, on September 7, 2013.  Members of the EDL assembled in central London despite losing a high court battle to demonstrate in the Tower Hamlets area of East London, which they claim is subjected to Sharia Law.  AFP PHOTO / JUSTIN TALLIS
Members of the Socialist Unite Against Fascism (UAF) gather in a park in Tower Hamlets ahead of a demonstration by the English Defence League (EDL) in London, on September 7, 2013.  AFP PHOTO / JUSTIN TALLIS

This coming Saturday, the English Defence League (a counter-jihad and patriotic movement) will be holding a demonstration in Rotherham, in northern England, in the wake of revelations from the latest enquiry that political correctness empowered Muslim sexual-grooming gangs to sexually exploit “at least” 1,400 children between 1997 and 2013, as reported at the Brenner Brief.

As the EDL website itself puts it:

Our Rotherham demonstration, on the 13th of September…. will focus on the child sexual abuse by Muslim rape gangs and the cowardly betrayals of local officials…

Predictably, Unite Against Fascism (UAF) and the Socialist Workers Party have promised a counter-demo.

Sadie Robinson – in the the Socialist Worker piece ‘After Rotherham abuse horror – don’t let the Nazis divide us’ – writes that the EDL “is trying to whip up racism in Rotherham”. (Another recent UAF-SWP favourite slogan is “don’t let the racists divide us”.)


Socialist Worker Interviewees

Ged Demsey (union leader and Labour Party member)

Ged Demsey, a member of the Labour Party and a supporter of the SWP. He’s also a leader of the Unite union.

You can’t help but be sceptical about Ged Demsey’s loyalty to the Labour Party (he’s also on the National Executive Council of the Unite union) because you can find him being interviewed again by Socialist Worker on a completely different issue. Not only that: in that interview – although speaking in a “personal capacity” (i.e., as a supporter of the SWP) – Demsey says that the Labour Party should “fight back with progressive and radical policies that offer a real alternative”. Do you mean, Mr. Demsey, the sort of policies which are offered by the Socialist Workers Party?

Anyway, because socialists/Leftists are so obsessed by the “fight against racism” (as the Rotherham grooming-gangs case has graphically shown), Ged Demsey himself says:

… we want the police, council officials and councillors to be held accountable for their failure to safeguard Pakistani and white children.

Yes, you read that correctly.

In his fight against mainly possible and fictional racism, Ged Demsey talks about Pakistani children being abused. Now Pakistani children may well be abused by their own families. However, Saturday’s demonstration is about Muslim grooming-gangs and the 1,400 white girls who were the victims of these gangs. Not a single Pakistani or Muslim girl was a victim.

Here again you have Leftists fusing general child abuse with the specific case of Muslim sexual-grooming gangs. And in so doing, these Leftists are deliberately muddying the water.

Socialist Worker also muddies the water by saying that “[r]acists have tried to paint abuse as a race issue after many victims described their abusers as ‘Asian’”.

So not only does the SWP – in its evangelical ideological correctness – have a problem with talk about “Muslim” or “Pakistani” grooming-gangs, it even has a problem with the use of the misleading term “Asian”. That’s how zealous and extreme the SWP is.

It’s strange that the SWP says that people have “tried to paint abuse as a race issue”.

No they haven’t!

The SWP and other Trotskyists have tried to paint this case as a race issue.

Most other people have painted it as a Pakistani or Muslim issue.

And neither Pakistanis nor Muslims – as the SWP knows – constitute a single race. However, because accusations of “racism” work (politically and strategically speaking), the SWP will continue to paint all the critics of Muslim grooming-gangs (as well as of Islam) as racist.

As ever, it’s the SWP that’s race-obsessed and indeed racist. It sees literally everything in terms of race. And it does so because if it can convince everybody else that criticism of Islam or of Pakistani grooming-gangs is racist in nature, then half its battle will already be won. After all, there are laws against racism and the authorities will take action against it…. except, of course, when that racism was displayed by the Muslims who systemically abused white girls in Rotherham and not a thing was done about it.

You see, the SWP doesn’t have a problem with that kind of racism. That is, Trotskyists don’t have a problem with people with brown skin being racist towards people with white skin.

In fact the SWP-UAF has never had a problem with brown and black racism. Why is that? It’s because, according to Marxist theory, all black and brown people are “oppressed” (by the “capitalist state” and “capitalist society”). Therefore brown and black people can only ever be the victims of racism. Young white working-class girls, on the other hand, are “oppressors” (or at least the daughters of white oppressors) who also benefit from something called “white privilege”.

Such is the sick theory (theology) of the SWP.

Additionally, Ged Demsey says that the “EDL doesn’t point out that most offenders for child abuse are white”. He then continues by saying that these abusers “include celebrities and people from the judiciary, politicians and the establishment”.

Demsey is moronically referring to the late celebrity Jimmy Savile, who was found to have sexually abused women throughout his life. The Jimmy Savile case saturated the airways and the tabloids for weeks, as have cases about “the judiciary, politicians and the establishment”. (No doubt the EDL itself has featured these cases too.) And besides which, of course “most offenders for child abuse are white” because most British people are white.

Phil Turner (SWP, Rotherham Advertiser & NUJ)

Phil Turner, a writer for the SWP and a reporter for the Rotherham Advertiser.

Socialist Worker also interviews Phil Turner, who’s a member of the National Union of Journalists (NUJ).

And lo and behold, Phil Turner is a member of the SWP too! (Here he is writing an article for Socialist Worker entitled ‘Remploy workers protest to stop factory closures’.)

In fact Phil Turner is also a reporter for the Rotherham Advertiser. (It seems that in 1998 Turner was “dragged to a disciplinary hearing” which “led to a one-day strike” against that newspaper.)

Gordon Jelley, member of the SWP and a “trainer” of social workers in Rotherham between 2005 and 2009.

Trotskyists have “taken over the institutions” in the Gramscian manner. Last week the Brenner Brief revealed that the SWP’s Gordon Jelley was a “training officer” for social workers in Rotherham between 2005 and 2009. Now we have a SWP member who’s also a reporter for the Rotherham Advertiser – the very newspaper which will have featured many pieces on the Muslim grooming-gangs in that town. In fact Phil Turner might well have written some of them!

And just when you think it can’t get any worse, this revolutionary-Trotskyist member of the SWP has written a piece for the Rotherham Advertiser on – of all things – Ukip. (Turner’s piece is called ‘Ukip linked to European far right organisation’.)

Unlike most regional news papers, the Rotherham Advertiser isn’t scared of fusing explicit editorial comment and factual detail. For example, here’s a self-referential piece entitled Advertiser dismisses BNP campaigner’s claims of sex grooming cover-up’ in which the Rotherham Advertiser says that the “BNP attempted to make political gain” over the Advertiser‘s own “cover-up” of the reality of Muslim grooming-gangs… And the SWP-UAF, the Labour Party and all other parties don’t do that kind of thing? In fact when the Rotherham Advertiser says that the BNP has “attempted to make political gain”, it can be said that it too has attempted to make political gain by saying that the BNP has attempted to make political gain…. if you catch my drift.

And as a Trotskyist, you’d expect the Rotherham Advertiser’s Phil Turner to talk about class… and he does talk about class. He tells Socialist Worker:

When you talk about class, it gets a response. If you don’t get out and talk to people, it can feel like the town’s been taken over by racists.

Well, “the town” has already been “taken over by racists”, Mr Turner. By the Muslim racists who abused over 1,400 white young girls because of their race and their religion. But as previously mentioned, according to Trotskyist theology brown people can never be racist because they’re “the oppressed” – every last one of them! The white people who are going to protest against these grooming-gangs on Saturday, on the other hand, are racists. Why? It’s simple: because they are white.

Vicky Hilton (Rotherham Fights Back)

Vicky Hilton, on the right.

Now here’s the Rotherham Advertiser’s very own member of the SWP – yes, Phil Turner again! – penning yet another completely objective and politically sensible piece on a group called Rotherham Fights Back which is entitled ‘Campaign launched to boost Rotherham community spirit’. In fact this article replicates exactly what Vicky Hilton says to Socialist Worker later; which isn’t surprising since the SWP’s Phil Turner works for both Socialist Worker and the Rotherham Advertiser.

The aforesaid Vicky Hilton – of Rotherham Fights Back – is quoted as saying that the people of Rotherham “want to live in a united community”.

It’s too late, Vicky.

Since Muslim grooming-gangs have ruled the streets of Rotherham for well over a decade, there’s little chance left of a “united community”. In other words, Muslims have already “divided us”.

And since the Muslim community has largely turned in on itself on this issue (as on many others), that won’t help either.

Neither will Rotherham’s Islamic-supremacist mosques, imams and “community leaders. Nor will its Leftist social workers, trade-union leaders and councillors.

In fact, rather than (white) “racists” and the EDL “diving the community”: Muslim grooming-gangs, Islamic supremacists and the Leftist whores-of-Islam in Rotherham have done precisely that – as nearly the whole of the UK now knows.

Monday, 8 September 2014

According to Cambridge University, Meat Causes Global Warming


Researchers from Aberdeen and Cambridge Universities have just published a study (on August 31st) which states that greenhouse gases from food production will go up 80% if we continue to eat meat and dairy produce at today's levels.

Of course global-warming activists (as well as academics) have said this kind of thing before.

Take Doctor Pachauri.

In 2008 Dr Pachauri told a Compassion in World Farming conference that everyone should
give up eating meat. Why did he do that? Because he believed that the digestive methane given off by cattle (i.e. flatulence) contributed more to greenhouse gases than all the world's transport put together. Though as Christopher Booker pointed out:

“As a vegetarian Hindu, Pachauri said nothing about the contribution to global warming made by India's 400 million sacred cows.”

Doctor Pachauri is neither an expert in dietary matters nor a scientist with specialised knowledge of atmospheric physics, astronomy, oceanography, geology, meteorology, chemistry, etc. (i.e., all the disciplines required in the “science of global warming”). He is (or was), in fact, a former railway engineer and economist who then became the chairman of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He was also awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, along with Al Gore, in 2007.

Now take a slightly later case.

In 2009, the Sustainable Development Unit of the UK's National Health Service (NHS) - which was then under the Labour Party control - published a report entitled
'Saving Carbon – Improving Health' . It advised all Britain's NHS hospitals to serve “nutritious fruit, veg and pulses” rather than meat and diary products. The reason why the NHC advised this was because it believed that meat and milk production contributed to the unacceptable rise in greenhouse gases. Or, as the NHS itself put it,

“unless we take effective action now, millions of people around the world will suffer hunger, water shortages and coastal flooding as the climate changes.”

However, just as Dr Pachauri forgot to mention the 400 million untouchable sacred cows of India, so the NHS forgot to mention that it was the largest single emitter of CO2 in the British public sector. In fact it was responsible for 3% of all the UK's emissions.

The Study

To get back to the
Cambridge University study.

A 80% rise of greenhouse gases (from food production alone) does sound like a lot.. at first. But then again the fact that there a billions of atoms in my little finger also sounds like a lot. The question is: So what?

We must now ask the following questions:

i) “Greenhouse gases will in increase by 80%” - over what period, exactly?
ii) The increase of 80% is an increase form which level?
iii) Is the initial level (the level today) itself in any way dangerous?

The lead researcher of this Cambridge University study, Bojana Bajzelj, seems to be attempting to fuse concerns about global warming with concerns about meat-eating and its effects on Third World -- or poorer -- economies.

So is Bajzelj's concern about global warming in the driving seat here? That is, has Bajzelj -- as a former “
environmental consultant” and now an environmental technologist -- found other concerns and causes to back up the prior fight against anthropogenic global warming?

Firstly, Bajzelj appears to be more about the wrongs of meat-eating and its effects on Third World economies than she is about global warming:

"The average efficiency of livestock converting plant feed to meat is less than 3%, and as we eat more meat, more arable cultivation is turned over to producing feedstock for animals that provide meat for humans.”

But then she says:

"The losses at each stage are large, and as humans globally eat more and more meat, conversion from plants to food becomes less and less efficient, driving agricultural expansion and releasing more greenhouse gases.”

She then:

“Agricultural practices are not necessarily at fault here -- but our choice of food is."

Now is that last statement simply disingenuous?

If we radically change what we eat (our “choice of food”), then “agricultural practices” in the Third World will change too. Or agricultural practices will change in response to our changed food habits. What Bajzelj is saying is that having farms devoted entirely to livestock is simply a response to the fact that we eat too much meat in the West. Therefore if we change our “choice of food”, then there won't be as many farms devoted to producing cattle for meat consumption.

Thus is just as much about economics and (possible) global inequalities than it's about global warming.

As a matter of fact, these other arguments against increased meat-eating in the West are far more persuasive than the stuff about global warming. Though the question remains:

Have warmists used these other arguments simply to back up the prior case for more political and economic action against global warming?

Perhaps I'm being too sceptical or even cynical here.

However, my scepticism is legitimate in many cases. There are academics, environmentalists and Leftists galore who are fervently in favour of drastic changes to Western capitalism or even its complete destruction. And that will be at the heart of much of this.

In addition, my scepticism is also at least partly legitimate in the sense that scientists and political activists who already accept anthropogenic global warming have indeed often collaborated with the health experts who are themselves concerned with the increased levels of obesity in the Western world.

In other words, warmists - or at least some of them -- have found another string for their bow. They have managed to tie the fight against fatness to the fight against anthropogenic global warming.

The Rising Level of Greenhouse Gases

As for greenhouse gases, even the most hardcore anthropogenic-global-warming sceptics have admitted -- and have done for over two decades -- that greenhouse gases have steadily increased over recent years. The problem is that these increases don't correlate with global warming. Alternatively, if they do, the effects of such increases are negligible from a human, social and environmental perspective.

For example, Peter Taylor -- a natural scientist who's worked on ocean pollution and atmosphere - wrote (in 2009) that “a doubling of this gas [carbon dioxide] does not present a serious threat”. (The Cambridge University study is not, of course, only about the rise in levels of carbon dioxide.)

But that doesn't matter to globalist politicians/activists, Greens/environmentalists and Leftists/progressives because simply saying that “greenhouse gases are rising” (or, in this case, “greenhouse gases from food production will go up 80%”) will have the desired psychological effect on many people. And if such statements have such a psychological effect, then they undoubtedly will have political effects too (in the long run).

Nonetheless, this study isn't just arguing that increased levels of greenhouse gases are partly caused by increased meat consumption. It's also arguing that such increases will “accelerate climate change”. And that's the very widely disputed bit.


What often seems to be at the heart of these concerns about meat-eating and global warming is a desire for political control and then for political change – not necessarily or always for global welfare. Or, more precisely, the focus on particular environmental (or, in this instance, health) issues will enable activists and politicians to make large political changes. Thus environmental concerns and causes are often – though not always – proxies for political concerns and causes.

Saturday, 6 September 2014

Gordon Jelley: the SWP’s Rotherham social worker on grooming-gangs

Gordon Jelley

Gordon Jelley was one of the Rotherham social workers – a member of the UK’s Socialist Workers Party (SWP) – who would have been partly responsible for the lack of action on Muslim grooming-gangs in that town.

This social worker is himself guilty.

It would have been Jelley – and people like him – who accused the police, council workers, etc. of being “racist” or “Islamophobic” when they wanted to take action against Muslim groomers.

It was people like him that sent whistle-blowers on “diversity re-education courses” when they brought to light the extent of Muslim grooming-gangs in Rotherham.

This is about what people like Gordon Jelley and other Trotskyists did in Rotherham council.

This is how Leftist ideology had a major and direct impact on the continuing abuse of hundreds of girls.

These social workers, council workers, etc. are guilty. And so is their ideology.

The front page of Socialist Worker, the website publication of the revolutionary Trotskyist group, the Socialist Workers Party (SWP).

Gordon Jelley, according to Socialist Worker (in the article Rotherham child abuse – blame cops and the cuts, not political correctness’), “worked as a training officer for social workers in Rotherham, South Yorkshire, between 2005 and 2009”.

What it doesn’t also tell you is that he’s also a member of the SWP. In fact Gordon Jelley writes for Socialist Worker and Socialist Review. (Both are SWP publications. Here is Jelley writing about a book called Radical Social Work Today.) He also wrote for Socialist Worker as a “Rotherham local government officer for Unison”. And here’s his Twitter page (lots of stuff about Palestine and he has some well-known friends).

The Socialist Worker website often interviews people who – seemingly – are bystanders or workers in the field. It fails to mention that they are Trotskyist supporters or workers for the SWP. I doubt that the SWP - being so ideologically narrow and rigid - would ever quote any non-Trotskyist in full.

You could tell straight away that Gordon Jelley was SWP by the way he puts his position. It’s pure Dave Spart. Pure SWP. And then I checked his details. And I was right.

In fact Gordon Jelley is such an hardcore Trot that he doesn’t even blame “the Tories”. He blames New Labour. That is, he blames capitalism.

He writes: “The council was under the cosh from New Labour targets after it failed an inspection.” (Mr Jelley worked as a  “training officer for social workers” in Rotherham between 2005 and 2009.)

Since Islamic sexual slavery – and the mass rape of kuffar females – has been happening for 1,400 years in the Muslim world, it’s strange that the SWP blames capitalism for the existence of Muslim grooming-gangs…. No it’s not! The SWP blames all wrongs on capitalism – quite literally! It blames capitalism for war, racism, sexism, global warming, the buses being late, cancer…. and, now, Muslim grooming-gangs.

The SWP’s position is Manicheanism at its most pure. A Manicheanism in which everything capitalist is bad (evil) and everything non-capitalist is good. (Those good non-capitalist and non-white things include Muslim grooming gangs, Islamic terrorists, Islamic misogynists, brown and black racists, Hamas, Hezbollah, the PLO, Iran, etc.)

Gordon Jelley also says that “[s]ocial workers had high caseloads”. Thus it follows, to him, that “[t]hey can be less likely to want to take on abuse cases because they know that comes with a heap of work they don’t have time for”.

The solution to that would have been very simple.

Social workers should have taken on the Muslim-abuse cases and jettisoned some of the others.

Why did these social workers have time for this other stuff and not for the systematic and widespread abuse of young girls? If Jelley is talking about “paperwork” here, then that may make what he’s saying a little better. But I doubt he’s only talking about paperwork. These other cases and time-consuming activities would have included making sure supporters of Ukip couldn’t adopt children (which happened in Rotherham), “racial awareness classes”, “diversity training”, action against “the far right”, “sensitivity training”, classes in social work (given by Leftist academics like, well, Gordon Jelley), lessons in Urdu and whatnot.

Political Correctness?

Gordon Jelley doesn’t say that he agrees with political correctness. He says that it didn’t so much as exist in Rotherham when he worked there.

Socialist Worker quotes him as saying that “[m]uch of the press—and many politicians—have claimed that ‘political correctness’ stopped the authorities taking action over the abuse”.

However, the SWP goes on to say that there is “no evidence of workers changing their behaviour due to considerations about the ethnicity of suspected abusers”…. Except that many people - including police officers, councillors, MPS, local residents, etc. - have said precisely that. And despite that evidence, this Trotskyist website then quotes Gordon Jelley as saying that “the idea of police worrying about offending Asian people was ‘like turning the world upside down’”.

Well, a political party (the SWP) which believes that political correctness has never gone far enough would say that. And since he mentions the police, members of the police – to repeat – have said that they were worried about “offending Asian people”. And they were worried because people like Gordon Jelley would have accused them of “racism” and “Islamophobia” if they tackled the Muslim grooming-gangs.

You see the Trotskyist permanent revolution hasn’t gone far enough for Gordon Jelley. And that’s why he still doesn’t see any of this as having anything to do with political (Trotskyist) correctness.

Jimmy Savile

Socialist Worker then goes ahead and makes an obscene point that even it must know is flawed to its very core. Like Slavoj Zizek’s recent article in The Guardian (that “Leftist herd of independent minds”), it says:

He [Gordon Jelley] pointed out that there are no demands on white ‘community leaders’ to condemn abuse when Jimmy Savile or other white abusers are discussed.

That’s because Jimmy Savile was a sex-abuser, not a racist. He didn’t single out Muslim or brown-skinned girls to abuse. The Muslim groomers, on the other hand, did single out white girls to abuse – specifically. Nor was Jimmy Savile expressing the traditions and values of his community, as the Pakistani Muslim groomers have done. Not only that: the Savile case has been extensively covered in the press. And that is something which the SWP doesn’t like when the criminals and abusers have brown skins. (Such is the deep-seated racism of the Trotskyist Left.) In addition, there weren’t dozens of gangs of Jimmy Saviles which all belonged to the same communities – brothers, cousins, uncles, mosque friends, next-door-neighbours, etc. – and which systemically abused members of other communities without the authorities doing a thing about it.


Gordon Jelley was a “training officer” for social workers in Rotherham between 2005 and 2009 . Thus it can be argued that he and his type are more guilty than almost anyone else for what happened in that town. After all, the police, councillors, other social workers, etc. would have taken advice from him and from people just like him.

Friday, 5 September 2014

Slavoj Žižek's Sly Defence of Muslim Sexual-grooming Gangs

[This article, as 'A Sly Defence of Muslim Sexual-grooming Gangs', can be found at American Thinker.]

As a Marxist revolutionary, Slavoj Žižek has his cake and eats it:
he believes in violent revolution as well as in “taking over the institutions” (in the Gramscian manner).

Currently Žižek is a senior academic at the following institutions: the Institute for Sociology and Philosophy at the University of Ljubljana in Slovenia; Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities (London); the European Graduate School; and Kyung Hee University, South Korea.

So it seems that Marxism isn't dead after all. It's certainly not the case that Žižek is dead. In fact he's been called the “Elvis of cultural theory”. The journal Foreign Policy listed him in its Top 100 Global Thinkers list in 2012. Žižek has also appeared in films and documentaries, including the 2005 film, Žižek! And it's even the case that there's a journal dedicated entirely to his work: the International Journal of Žižek Studies.


To be honest, I was expecting an unmitigated apologia on Muslim sexual-grooming gangs from Slavoj Žižek (even if a theoretical and canny one) in his most recent article for The Guardian: 'Rotherham child sex abuse: it is our duty to ask difficult questions'. After all, we're talking about a Marxist philosopher (if with non-Marxist trimmings) and The Guardian here. However, the piece isn't quite as bad as I thought it would be.

Having said that, yet another Guardian article with the usual deceit and apologetics on Islam and Muslims simply wouldn't have washed in the severe and in-your-face case of Rotherham's Muslim gangs – not even with theory-intoxicated Guardianistas.

But hold on to your horses a minute!

In the end, even though Žižek says things like “we are dealing with the 'political unconscious' of the Pakistani Muslim youth” (note the word 'political', not 'religious'), he never once goes into detail about either Islam or Pakistani Muslim culture. And as I did expect, Žižek goes into more detail about Catholic priests, Jimmy Savile and serial rapes by white men (in Canada) than he does about Muslim grooming-gangs.

In fact Žižek may be deceitfully trying to sell himself as a honest Leftist/Marxist simply in order to make the same old Leftist points he does make about Jimmy Savile, white Canadian rapists and the Catholic Church. And all this despite the fact that he writes that

“anti-racism is effectively a barely covert racism, condescendingly treating Pakistanis as morally inferior beings who should not be held to our standards”.

As well as:

“[I]t is fully legitimate to raise the question of whether there are features in their religion and culture that open up the space for the brutality against women.”

Indeed Žižek does “raise the question”. The problem is: he doesn't attempt to answer it.

There are - at most - two (of thirteen) paragraphs specifically on Muslim grooming-gangs (i.e., less than 170 words of a 1129-word article). And even those two paragraphs are vague and very general in that Žižek is actually talking about religion generally, not Islam. He spends two paragraphs, on the other hand, on the sexual abuse cases of the Catholic Church and one more paragraph on “a group of white rapists” in Canada.

The funny thing is (unless he's playing games) that Žižek does say that the

“left exhibited the worst of political correctness, mostly via generalisations: perpetrators were vaguely designated as 'Asians', claims were made that it was not about ethnicity and religion but about the domination of men over women”.

Though after saying that, Žižek goes straight ahead and more or less does what he has just said “the left” has done so far. That is, he spends more time talking about religions generally - as well as “ritualised” male sexism and violence - than he does talking about the specifics of Muslim grooming-gangs in England.

So perhaps this ostensible openness and honesty from Žižek is simply a strategic move (politically speaking). Or, to use Žižek's own words, not being honest and open about Muslim grooming-gangs is

“a more effective way to open up the field to Ukip and other anti-immigrant populists who exploit the worries of ordinary people...”

In other words, if the Left doesn't allow more articles like Žižek's to be written, then UKip - and other “populists” - will find it even easier to “exploit the worries of ordinary people”. (The words “exploit the worries of ordinary people” is Žižek's tangential use of the Marxist notion of “false consciousness”; which, apparently, is something which “ordinary people” - i.e., all non-Marxists - suffer from.)

All Religions - Except Marxism - are Bad

In the entire article, Slavoj Žižek only has one thing to say about Islam itself. At that is this:

“Without blaming Islam as such (which is in itself no more misogynistic than Christianity).”

Now that's precisely what you would expect from The Guardian and Slavoj Žižek.

Žižek, as a Marxist, thinks that all religions have a problem with what he calls “ritualised violence” in which religious males take “revenge on vulnerable women of the predominant group”.

Here Žižek is simply reiterating the mindless Marxist position that – basically - all religions are the same. (All religions have certainly been analysed in the same way by Marxists.) And if all religions are the same, then it must follow that any concentration on Islam simply must be racist or “Islamophobic” in some way – by Marxist definition. After all, Žižek himself is at pains to tell is about white rapists in Canada and sexual abuse in the Catholic Church.

Zizek's also offers a Marxist analysis of male violence against women; which also conveniently fits into his Marxist analysis of religion. And, yes, you guessed it, that violence is all about socioeconomic “exclusion”, “social dislocation” and the like.

For example, it terms of the “serial rapes” by “a group of white men” in Canada, this is all about “the social dislocation due to fast industrialisation and modernisation” which “provoked a brutal reaction from males who experience this development as a threat”. (This is yet another example of Marxist reductionism which, in this instance, simply disregards such sexually-violent activities as they are carried out by affluent or politically/socially powerful men.)

Of course saying that all religions are the same (or that all religions are, in Marxist-speak, “mere epiphenomena of socio-economic realities” ) is about as subtle and sophisticated as saying that “all politicians piss in the same bucket”.


Slavoj Žižek's Marxism is perhaps at its most pure when he says that at the heart of the matter of Muslim grooming-gangs (believe it or not!) isn't the

“conflict between cultures, but a conflict between different visions of how different cultures can and should co-exist”.

Now that statement - despite Žižek's hints at a “Marxist critique” of multiculturalism - is one of the best descriptions of the ultimate vice of multiculturalism that I've ever read. In addition, Žižek sums up the essence of multiculturalist theory and then goes right ahead and fully endorses it...

.... Except that Žižek does add his own little something to plain-old multiculturalism: a multiculturalism than should be (more?) Marxist in nature. (Since when has multiculturalist theory not been largely Marxist in nature, Slavoj?)

Like the beliefs of all those Dead and Living White Males of the various capitalist and imperialist empires, Marxists have always seen Marxism as a “universal” religion or ideology. Or as Žižek himself puts it:

“The only way to break out of this deadlock is to propose and fight for a positive universal project shared by all participants.”

That “universal project” is one which includes the “fight for emancipation” and the “struggle against neocolonialism”. That Grand Narrative and universal ideology is Marxism. In other words, what will tie the so-far warring tribes, religions and even classes together - within a multicultural society - is a joint commitment not to patriotism or shared civic, social and political values/traditions, but to Marxist theory, ideology and causes.

In the end, then, Slavoj Žižek delivers more of the same Marxist/Leftist theory; despite the promising hints and half-criticisms of Muslim grooming-gangs. In fact he offers us a Marxist rationale (or apology!) for so much as mentioning (though not analysing) the Muslim grooming-gangs and their misogyny and racism.

Yes, Slavoj Žižek predictably – and despite my initial surprise - spends much more time indulging in yet more ritualistic criticisms of various Leftist bêtes noires than he does criticising – let alone analysing - the Muslim grooming-gangs of Rotherham and beyond.