A few days ago, the television networks invited us to watch another charming English royal wedding. Prince Harry, second son of Prince Charles and the late Diana Spencer, was wed to Meghan Markle, a divorced American television star. The English certainly do know how to produce these royal ceremonies, and this one was up to their high standards—although I would argue that having a choir sing Ben E. King’s 1961 Rhythm & Blues hit, “Stand by Me,” was déclassé and a faux pas. Opinions vary. The guests were the usual mix of celebrities from the sports and entertainment worlds, including Americans George Clooney and Oprah Winfrey, soccer star David Beckham and wife Victoria, who is a former “Spice Girl”, singer Elton John and his husband, and several of Meghan Markle’s “Suits” co-stars.
If all you knew about “jolly old England” was what you saw at the royal wedding, you would think it a very healthy polity—and a very Christian one, based upon a ceremony in which God was frequently invoked and several Christian clergymen delivered homilies. True, its upper class oddly consists mostly of athletes, pop singers, and actors, but otherwise Great Britain seemed as strong and as Christian as ever; the “Sceptered Isle” is still Shakespeare’s “royal throne of kings”:
This royal throne of kings, this sceptered isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for her self
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in a silver sea
Which serves it in the office of a wall
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happy lands,
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.
But all is not well on the “sceptered Isle.” It is less English and less Christian with each passing year.
Between 2001 and 2011 the Muslim population of Britain doubled, from 1.5 million to 3 million. Currently, over 6.3% of the population of Great Britain are Muslim, but London is over 12% Muslim and some boroughs—Newham and Tower Hamlets—are well over 30% Muslim.
The Muslim population is much younger than the Christian population, and more fertile, having 2.6 children per woman as opposed to 1.6 for non-Muslims. The higher Muslim birthrate and the mortality of the older Christian population means that the Muslim proportion of Britain’s population will continue to increase for generations, even if the country’s desire to reduce immigration, evidenced by the “Brexit” vote, were respected by Britain’s governing elites—and they have no intention of respecting it.
The mayor of London, Sadiq Kahn, is a militant Muslim, and Sajid Javid, of Pakistani extraction and at least a cultural Muslim, is Home Secretary in the Conservative Party cabinet and in line to become Prime Minister (the current PM, Theresa May, was promoted from Home Secretary).
One of the many reasons mass Muslim immigration to the West will end in catastrophe is that, according to sharia law and the law of Jihad, Islam is at war with all non-Muslim countries all the time unless a temporary truce (never longer than 10 years) has been agreed to. The dar al-Islam—the “house of Islam”—is the house of peace” but the non-Muslim world is the dar al-harb—the “house of war.” Muhammad said: “I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah.” (Sahih Muslim 30). That means that the jihad must continue until the non-Muslim world indicates its submission to Islam.
After submitting to Islam there is a treaty (or dhimma), and non-Muslims become “people of the dhimma” or “dhimmis” whose lives are protected by sharia law if they pay a tax called the jizyah and submit to a series of disabilities amounting to markedly second-class citizenship under the rulership of Islam.
You might think that mass Muslim immigration to the West is undertaken not for conquest but for economic opportunity, but Muslim immigration is a form of “dawa,” which is aggressive Islamic proselytism. The Muslim Brotherhood’s leading sharia jurist, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, has stated that it is through dawa—immigration to the West—that “we will conquer Europe, we will conquer America.” The key to “our quest for an Islamic state” is to “convince Western leaders and decision-makers of our right to live according to our faith.”
But when Muslims say “faith,” they are not talking about privately held religious beliefs, but rather the totalitarian strictures of sharia law, which is public law. Islam does not concede the validity of “man-made law,” i.e. law passed by elected parliaments or legislatures. Islam does not believe in—can scarcely conceive of—the separation of church and state, which is utterly alien to Islam. Islam insists that Islam is supreme above all other religions. Islam rejects liberty and equality, treating women as chattel and non-Muslims as contemptible. It instills in young Muslims, especially in young Muslim men, the belief that Western culture is not merely to be resisted as corrupt, but Westerners are to be disdained as beneath Muslims (which goes double for Western women).
The Islamic contempt for non-Muslims combined with the doctrine of perpetual jihad warfare create a nasty problem when Muslim men come into contact with unaccompanied non-Muslim women and girls: the law of jihad makes non-Muslim women fair game to any Muslim man. The Qur’an teaches that a Muslim man may have sex with his wives as well as with “captives of the right hand” (4:3, 4:24, 23:1-6), who are “spoils of war” (33:50). These are non-Muslim women who have been captured in jihad warfare and reduced to slavery, and, under well-established sharia principles, have no right to withhold consent to sexual activity.
By importing a large Muslim population, Europe has imposed upon itself a rape crisis, which can be seen most clearly in Sweden. Since deciding to become the diversity capital of Europe, Sweden has seen rapes rise 1,472%, and has become the rape capital of Europe and indeed, except for Lesotho, southern Africa, the rape capital of the world.
But the worst problems seem to have been reserved for England. In 2014, the world learned that in the South Yorkshire town of Rotherham over 1,400 girls, some as young as 11, were "groomed", drugged, raped, trafficked and forced into prostitution. These facts were found by an independent inquiry led by Professor Alexis Jay, which issued the Jay Report. One girl was doused in gasoline and threatened with being set on fire. Another young girl who had threatened to inform the police of her abuse and name her tormentors had her tongue nailed to a table.
The predators acted brazenly. They would show up at foster homes and orphanages, select the girls they wanted to pimp out, and drive away with them. The staff would not intervene for fear of being called racist. Policy analyst George Igler states, “The thing you have to understand about this rape of children is it’s not just sexual abuse. It is unspeakable levels of violence . . . These are sometimes girls who are picked up from a children’s home on a Friday, are being raped during the course of a weekend by hundreds of men and returned with bleeding groins back to the children’s’ home on a Monday morning and they don’t do anything about it at all.”
The men who run the grooming/rape gangs are euphemistically described in the British press as “Asian,” and most are from Pakistan, but the problem is not one of geography. The problem is ideology, particularly the tenets of Islam explored above. Muslim apologists—which includes the entire English governing and media class—insist that all races and religions sexually abuse children. But while not every single perpetrator in the grooming/rape gangs is Muslim, data from convictions show that Muslim males were 170 times more likely to be involved in these gangs than non-Muslims. Anyone who cannot accept that Islamic ideology might explain the behavior—indeed, anyone who is not looking for an explanation within Islamic doctrine—is blinded by his commitment to multiculturalism.
The Rotherham sex abuse ring was not an isolated case, merely one of many such Muslim rape and prostitution rings operating in England. There were similar rings operating in Rochdale, Newcastle, Peterborough, Oxford, Bristol, Telford, Leeds and other cities. In Rochdale, Sara Rowbothan made more than 180 attempts between 2003 and 2014 to alert police and social services to the sex abuse, but was told her witnesses were not reliable.
The leading expert on the Muslim “grooming gangs” is Peter McLoughlin, author of "Easy Meat," the title of which comes from one of the perpetrator’s opinion of his victims. For years, McLoughlin swallowed the multi-culturalists’ lie that organized Muslim grooming gangs were just a paranoid delusion of the racist far-Right. But he met many people who told him that their children had been groomed; these people had non-whites in their immediate and extended families and were unlikely to be racists.
McLoughlin dug deep and found mountains of evidence that social workers, police officers, Muslim organizations, journalists, and even some Members of Parliament knew about these grooming gangs for decades. He believes the government is still trying to cover up the true extent of the predation, and that even the Jay Report implies that the crime was limited to Rotherham. McLoughlin states that there are at least tens of thousands of victims, and possibly up to a million.
Throughout this entire tragedy, unfolding over decades, the apparatus of the state—police, town councils, and child protection agencies--looked the other way out of fear being deemed "racist" or "Islamophobic." The police, newly trained in “cultural sensitivity,” were terrified of being accused of racism, and hence allowed the traffickers to operate with impunity. The social workers did likewise.
In Newcastle, much of the abuse between 2010 and 2014 took place at “sex parties” in homes under government control, and involved girls in foster care, or what we would call “child protective services” care. Child care professionals, whose profession is marinated in the most rigid political correctness, allowed Muslims to abuse their charges and colluded with the predators in keeping their crimes secret.
“The signal that police, social services and the media sent to these gangs,” writes McLoughlin, “was, ‘carry on with what you are doing, we are not going to stop you, we are not going to expose your crimes.’ . . . In their wildest dreams, most criminals could not envisage an alliance of sociologists, politicians, police officers, and fundamentalist [Muslim] groups helping to cover up the gangs’ criminality.”
Those government workers who turned a blind eye to the destruction of 1,400 lives in their care, or even facilitated it, have paid no price. Sonia Sharp, who was head of child services in Rotherham is now in an equivalent position in Australia, for the state of Victoria.
The British government does not want people to know what is going on. Consider what happened to Sarah Champion, an MP for Rotherham and spokesperson for "Women and Equalities" in the Labor Party shadow cabinet. Ms. Champion wrote a column for The Sun in August of last year, stating:
Britain has a problem with British Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girls.
There. I said it. Does that make me a racist? Or am I just prepared to call out this horrifying problem for what it is?
Jeremy Corbyn, the socialist who leads the Labor Party, immediately fired Champion from his shadow cabinet.
The British government has tools to prevent press coverage, and it is using them. There are rules about press coverage of criminal trials: the reporters must use the word “alleged,” must not imply guilt, and must use phrases like “the trial is ongoing.” American media generally follow these usages, but in Britain they are mandatory. The government may also issue an official request, called a “D notice,” that news editors not publish or broadcast on certain subjects for reasons of national security; in theory, D notices are voluntary, but they are almost always obeyed.
Peter McLoughlin collaborated on a book with Tommy Robinson, founder of an anti-Sharia group called the English Defense League, and one of the few people in England who is trying to draw attention to the grooming gangs rather than cover up for them.
Last Friday, Tommy Robinson was on the street outside the Crown Court in Leeds, using a cell phone camera to livestream. He stated that inside the courtroom the jury was deciding the guilt or innocence of another batch of Muslim rape gang defendants. Robinson was not demonstrating, chanting, making noise, or making a scene or disturbance. Nevertheless, seven cops showed up, falsely accused him of breaching the peace, and hauled him away.
The judge, Geoffrey Marson, spent four (4) minutes (minutes not hours) trying Robinson, convicting him, and sentencing him to thirteen months in jail. Then Marson imposed a gag order and a press blackout, ordering that no news organization should report on his ruling. Only two hours expired between the false arrest of a peaceful Robinson and his being bundled off to jail to serve 13 months. So Judge Marson disappeared Tommy Robinson, like Enver Hoxha disappeared people in communist Albania, and gave orders that no one should breathe a word about the disappearance. (The gag order was lifted yesterday, after it led to huge publicity in the United States--even Britain's ruling class could see it was harming them more than helping.)
The excuse for the summary disappearing of Tommy Robinson was that one year ago, he was sentenced to 3 months in jail, probated for 18 months, for having livestreamed from a different Muslim grooming gang courthouse, that one in Canterbury, and having published the resulting video without saying that the child rapists were “alleged” child rapists.
Robinson's life is in real danger from the thousands of Muslim inmates in UK prisons. The last time Robinson was incarcerated, he was attacked and nearly killed by Muslims. And make no mistake about it, Theresa May and the British state want Tommy Robinson silenced, one way or another. They despise him because he draws attention to the disastrous results of the policy of mass Muslim immigration—a policy England’s ruling class is hell-bent on continuing. They are determined to crush him on any excuse, regardless how Lilliputian; they already jailed him for 18 months for a false statement on a mortgage application, a “crime” nearly universal in the Western world but almost never prosecuted.
For the British ruling class of both major parties, the problem is not thousands of girls raped and turned out by Muslim thugs—in their minds that’s a small price to pay for the benefits of vibrant diversity—the problem is those boorish types like Tommy Robinson who insist on drawing attention to, as Mark Steyn put it, “the sacrifice of English maidenhood to the volcano gods of multiculturalism.”
An enemy has done this: the utopian ideology of multi-culturalism. Those in thrall to utopian ideology lose their ability to feel moral indignation and outrage, and eventually all capacity for human feeling or sympathy. How else can one explain the monstrous crimes of communism—the scores of millions of dead? How else can one explain the casual indifference to human suffering, as encapsulated in Stalin’s famous remark, “you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs” (enthusiastically repeated by New York Times reporter Walter Duranty).
The English government and ruling class are not alone in their loathing of Christianity, and their determination to destroy it. Much of Western Europe has simply decided to commit cultural suicide. France (9% Muslim), Sweden (8%), Belgium (8%), the Netherlands (7%), Austria (7%), Switzerland (6%), and Germany (6%) are all near the point where their Muslim minorities, if they vote in a bloc, will be able to govern them and subject them to sharia law.
Already Islam has been able to impose the sharia doctrine that neither Islam nor Muhammad may ever be criticized. Western European governments respond to any criticism of Islam exactly as Britain is responding to Tommy Robinson—with criminal prosecution. The Netherlands have repeatedly prosecuted Geert Wilders, the leader of a Dutch party that opposes Muslim immigration. France prosecuted Brigitte Bardot for pointing out that France is being overrun by Muslims. After watching their governments financially ruin and imprison hundreds of people who criticized Islam, most Europeans have learned to keep quiet. Any nascent political party or movement that opposes limitless Muslim immigration is immediately branded Nazi, fascist, or far-Right (a slander in which American media collude). This leaves no mechanism for political adjustment or peaceful course correction, meaning that the Islamization of western Europe is fait accompli absent violent revolution.
For an American, the greatest disappointment is not western Europe but England, the nation that gave us Magna Carta, the beginning of ordered liberty under law that even sovereigns must obey. England, the nation that gave us the common law and built a global empire that birthed several of the freest and most prosperous nations in the world, has opted for cultural suicide. “This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England” has become a repressive regime, dedicated to utopian social experimentation and willing to mow down its loftiest ideals so as to destroy anyone who lifts his head to object.
Eerily, Shakespeare, in that same passage from Richard II, seems to have predicted England’s current condition, “bound in with shame” and having “made a shameful conquest of itself”:
This land of such dear souls, this dear, dear land,
Dear for her reputation through the world,
Is now leased out - I die pronouncing it -
Like to a tenement or pelting farm.
England, bound in with the triumphant sea,
Whose rocky shore beats back the envious siege
Of watery Neptune, is now bound in with shame,
With inky blots and rotten parchment bonds.
That England that was wont to conquer others
Hath made a shameful conquest of itself.
A nation that will not protect its young girls from sexual predation by an alien culture ought to feel very deep shame, but degenerate England is shameless.