A Guest Post by
Sarah Beth
There have been two major incidents that brought my attention to this problem in the UK. I think we have all heard about Henry Nowak, but the fact that he died while being arrested for racism rather than having someone take care of him and arrest the kid who knifed him rather upset me. In case we are confused about the problem, at least in the US Karmelo Anthony was arrested rather than Metcalf, whom he had stabbed. However, a new report has come out regarding the Muslim grooming gangs in the UK and that, with the background of Henry Nowak, leads me to some conclusions. Read the whole thing, if you have the stomach for it. I cried as I read it.
If it is too upsetting to read it all, here is an article about the report. It doesn’t hurt as much to read.
There are three main causes that I can see for this situation. The first cause, like the cause for much human suffering and trafficking, is poor structure, in this case, family structure. Most trafficked girls are either sold to traffickers or, as in many of the victim’s reports, from a less than ideal, often abusive, family structure. I don’t plan to discuss the problems or solutions to this, as it is a serious can of worms and the hardest to fix. If we work on the other two problems, this, while still an issue, will be less of one.
The next problem is that of Islam. Islam itself is not a good religion for a civilized society. We see that the Koran states that you may marry up to four wives and have as many concubines as you wish, as long as they are not Islamic women. Sex with prepubescent girls is also totally okay, with child marriage accepted and consummation recommended at the age of 9 with some versions of Islam suggesting it even earlier. Some Imams have said that it is better for a girl to not to become a woman (referring to her first period) in her father’s house, but instead in her husband’s. We also have the precepts in the Koran for how Muslims should behave in society, peaceful as the powerless, lying to unbelievers at any time, and when reaching a majority and having power, becoming brutal.
Before discussing the repercussions on society for those precepts, I think it is fair to address the concern that this is not all of Islam, the “religion of peace.” We can always have the discussion of what in a holy book is to be taken literally, figuratively, or even transiently. I know of many statements in the Bible that we could debate. However, there are plenty of reasons to believe that the Koran is far more troublesome than the Bible. First, many Imams today proclaim the harsher rules, and the Imams who do not are almost always in non-majority Muslim countries, which could perhaps fall under the “lying to infidels” rule. If we compare that to how Jewish rabbis, protestant ministers, and the Pope relate to the Bible, you will see that the violence recommended in the Bible is not taken to be a command to take literally today by the majority, even in countries where Jews or Christians are the majority.
The second reason we should consider the Koran’s violence to still be considered a literal command instead of a figurative one is the sheer number of Muslims that follow it. We can look at Jews and Christians and see that the majority of followers of those religions do not follow the violent commands. Consider the commands in Leviticus and Deuteronomy to stone homosexuals and witches. There aren’t many Christians who do either, and the majority loudly denounces people like Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptists. We don’t see much of the Muslim world decrying other Muslim’s antisocial behaviors. The best we tend to get is, “that’s not how we follow our faith, so don’t blame us.”
Ethics Alarms 
Wonderful post. Saved me having to read the report when it popped up on The Free Press. Thank youl.
Just the other day, I was fantasizing about having Islam come to an ecumenical moment. Why couldn’t an Imam issue a fatwah saying there was no longer a need for Islamic people to murder non-Islamic people. Instead, Islamic people should live in harmony with non-Islamic people. And then, another Imam could issue a fatwah saying Jews were no longer to be killed. and Israel was to be left alone. Jews were to be allowed to live like any Islamic person. What a wonderful event that would be. All of which tells you how majestically messed up contemporary Islam and the modern world are. Why are they living in the Seventh Century? How messed up is that?
I just read the Executive Summary and am horrified. Can Britain save itself? Can they overcome the fear of Leftist pandering and accusations of racism and prosecute every last one of these monsters?
I’m wondering if there is a widespread problem like this in any American cities. There have been rumors.
Seventh century indeed.
To the best of my knowledge, we have more girls/women raped, (This is actually, over the time frame, relatively low numbers, though one is obviously too many) but our law enforcement and social services work harder at catching rapists and don’t routinely hand people right back to their abusers in the same way Britain does.
Another reason for the second amendment.
You could bypass whether it’s consistent with “real Islam” and just look at the culture of men in certain countries. It’s easy to predict something like this would happen, especially if you throw in the “exotic” woman idea.
Any people who have a certain culture will change the nation they migrate to if there are enough of them. If you took 2 million progressives and dropped them into Iran (assuming Iran did tolerate them somehow), they would change some of the culture of Iran because their values are different.
This is especially true when you don’t prioritize assimilation.
Trump seems to be someone that is hyper concerned about this, but in the future, or in some state where a governor is afraid of being seen as racist, something in this vein could happen, and it would be a great tragedy.
Preface: I’m not trying to dismiss this report or counter its claims. It’s certainly possible every conclusion is correct and it’s totally on the level.
However, I think it’s good to keep some context in mind here:
This report is a “report” in the same way you or I writing 200 pages and calling it a “report” is a report. It didn’t come from the government, police, courts, or any similar agencies.
The “independent MP” Rupert Lowe, noted as chairing the inquiry behind this report, did not do so as part of his governmental duties. He is also the founder of the “Restore Britain” political party, which he did after getting kicked out of the Reform party.
To rank the reasonably-known right-wing parties in the UK, you have the Conservatives (pretty right-wing), Reform (more right wing, and though they’ve been dialing it back a bit recently pretty anti-immigrant) and then there’s Lowe’s Restore party (even MORE right-wing and very explicitly anti-immigrant)
I’m not trying to guilt-by-association this thing but I’m sure I’ve seen posts here about how bias can affect the outcomes of studies and reports so I thought this information might be helpful to anyone unaware.
All valid considerations. And they give the Axis media an excuse not to report on the report. The Nowak case was accurately reported however, and that is string evidence that the UK is more concerned about being accused of Islamophobia than it is about the safety and welfare of its citizens
Preface: I’m not trying to dismiss this report or counter its claims. It’s certainly possible every conclusion is correct and it’s totally on the level.
If it is all true what do you recommend?
You also need to concede that this is not the first report on this. There have been official government reports. The official reports come to the same conclusions, they just refuse to state things in terms as stark as these. There was the Report of Inspection of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council in 2015 that same to the same basic conclusion. The previous one in 2013 did as well, with the 2015 being a little more glaring in its conclusions. All have found that a vast number of teenage, white, British girls were abducted or otherwise used for sex slaves by Muslim men. The latest report puts the numbers at 250,000, the previous report didn’t want to put a number on it. All of them admit the government actively participated in the sex slavery by returning mnor girls who escaped to their captors, not their families (even when they begged to go back to their families) and to arresting and imprisoning fathers who managed to free their daughters from captivity.
One difference between Christianity and Islam is that Christianity believes that the scriptures are the inspired word of God and are interpreted by believers for today. Islam believes that their scriptures are the unalterable writings of Allah that are eternal. They cannot be changed. Certain kinds of rape are allowed, and indeed encouraged in Islam. Sahih Muslim 1456 allows the rape of captive women even if they are married. This is not ‘some’ Muslims, this is all Muslims. Because of the work of the Imams, most Muslims in Britian view the girls of England are captive women. Muslims arrived in Britain and they are paid Jizya by the government through free housing an welfare (why else would they be given all this free stuff?). That makes the British subject people. Muslims are free to capture and use Britain’s girls and women as sex slaves.
Mohhamed is regarded as the model for all Muslim men. He married Aisha when she was 6. Unfortunately for him, she was ill and her hair fell out before he consummated the marriage. Her hair did not grow back to an acceptable length until she was 9, and he then consummated the marriage. The Koran (Surahs 64, verses 1-5) outline the procedure for divorcing a wife who has not reached puberty. There is no branch of Islam that says that is it immoral or improper to marry a young girl. To say so would be to state that Mohammed was wrong marrying the mother of the faith and you would probably be killed under Islamic Law.
Remember, most of Islam describes a system of government and society. It is not a religion you can ‘plug’ into any form of government. It its own government. Anywhere there is a large group of Muslims, the secular authorities must give way to the religious authorities. That is why the city of Dearborn, MI had to pay David Wood (‘the Dizzle’) for arresting him in 2010 and 2017 for distributing Christian literature in Dearborn. In the 2010 incident, the Acts 17 people found that the City of Dearborn would not allow the city police into the ‘Muslim’ area and only the Islamic Religious Police had authority there.
https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/2013/05/07/dearborn-agrees-to-settlement-with-missionaries/
https://www.americanfreedomlawcenter.org/case/acts-17-v-city-of-dearborn/
COTD, MR; primo!
PWS
What brought me about a decade ago now to EA was my reading of Slouching Toward Gomorrah (Robert Bork) and the ‘ethics’ involved in countering the radical-liberalism and revolutionary politics of the 1960’s generation. That slithering, incompetent, brainless idiot known as Still Spartan was brought up recently (in one of the long-standing efforts to cause me to react, I guess) and I now am remembering better “where I was at” back then and what counter-radical ideas i was thinking about. The European Identitarian movement comes to mind, and Jack’s excellent post has strong — what’s the word? — resonances to European Identitarian ideas and politics.
There is of course in Europe today a developing social and cultural movement the basis of which is “reverse immigration” and “forced repatriation”. It can only be said, because it is true, that there is no politics except a very definite Right-tending and even radically Right tending politics, that could ever reverse the invasive immigration that is so troublesome in most European counties.
So, the first step is to— aside from noting the problem of foreign colonization in European countries — is identifying what social and political ideology allowed it and brought it about. That work — especially for pseudo-conservatives of the American school — involves radical self-examination and a confrontation with entire trends in American social political simply put too demanding for most. If they ever did come out and actually vocalize identitarian ideas (like those brewing in Europe) they would be shunned and punished just as are and were American activists whose ideas turn against perverted Americanism that is a blight upon the entire world. The operative word is “perversion”, and this involves “transvaluation of values” and the PR manipulations this entails (which define America today).
You see? It is not hard really, but it is demanding. It requires a confrontation with an American identity that is a contrivance, a concoction, a late-fabrication. It is happening, but so slooooowly.
And they give the Axis media
This is the question: What really is “the Axis media”? Do we have a solid, thorough definition? Or is it just one of those terms that are used but can mean many different things depending on context and the mood of the user?
Is it corporate media? Is it therefore the interests of corporations who, some say, have vastly more power than governments? I wonder if this corresponds to my notions of “the American business class that sold-out America? If this is true, even partially, how could we talk about being “sold out”? Does this have considerable meaning?
But we must, in referring to an Axis media, be speaking about the PR industry, no? And the science of propaganda and social manipulation, right? And then 💰 is really what’s being referred to, isn’t that right? That means plutocracy doesn’t it? A nation run by “business interests”.
Oh dear, OMG, what is happening here?! This notion of an Axis Media has stimulated my mind but now I am fearful of where it takes me, into what horrifying corridors of actual thinking about real things I am being drawn! I need a Michael West or even, or even! a JutGory to sail down to my level and say, at least, some amazing Truthful Thing! 🙃
Can it be done?
Good morning, Alizia.
The “Axis media” was a term coined by our intrepid ethics leader, Jack, to describe the collusion between Big Media and Big Democrat/DNC/Left to frame issues and incidents in the worst possible way to criticize Republicans, conservatives, and, especially, Orange Man Evil Bad.
Jack has uses the term, for example, when discussing the media’s response to the Hunter Biden Laptop scandal, Joe Biden’s accelerated mental dissolution, or the Russiagate collusion between Obama, Clinton, the DNC, the intelligence industry and the media running with it to destroy Trump, or the framing of local crimes as part of a larger racial context.
He is critical of the media’s utter abdication of its role to report with honesty and without bias, or if there is a bias, to disclose it up front.
jvb