More from the Religion of Peace and the Left who turns a blind eye. This from Truth Revolt:
A horrifying news report in The Telegraph has recently confirmed that 1,400 children were discovered as victims of Muslim rape gangs and prostitution rings in Rotherham, UK, while authorities and child protection services turned a blind eye in order to avoid being called “racist.”
Daniel Greenfield’s blog at The Point deals with this shameful and outrageous story: “UK Police Arrested Parents Trying to Stop Muslims from Raping their Children.”
In response to the surfacing of this story, and to shed light on the dark forces that help make the vicious system of Islamic sex slavery possible in the West, we are running The Glazov Gang’s special 2-part series with Gavin Boby, of the Law and Freedom Foundation, about the terrifying reality of Muslim rape gangs in the UK and how the Left facilitates their barbaric crimes against helpless young girls. The series crystallizes why the horrible story emerging about the 1,400 child victims in Rotherham was a Muslim crime that the Left allowed to occur.
In Part I, Boby shares his battle against “Muslim Rape Gangs in the U.K.” and in Part II, he discusses his report on this horrifying phenomenon, ‘Easy Meat,‘ and takes us “Inside the World of Muslim Rape Gangs”.
Loading ...
Had it been Catholic, the media would have been all over this horror like a bear in a honey bee nest. But, because it does not fit the narrative of Islam being the religion of peace they look the other way. I hope there is a special place in Hell for such hypocrites. In the mean time I am praying they find Christ, the true and only peace.
Reading comments on various Internet forums, it is gratifying to see that many (if not most) of those on the Internet now understand that Islam is a religion of pieces, and not peace.
Interesting that the Telegraph piece continually refers to them as Asian. You have to go to the other links to see Muslims.
Okay, serious Politically InCorrectness follows, all who are easily offended have been warned, and should skip this post.
On September 9th, 2001, I didn’t care about the religion of islam, I wasn’t even a Catholic back then, and islam wasn’t even on my radar. I just didn’t care.
On September 12th, 2001, I vowed to learn all I could about islam. I wanted to know everything.
Its founder, its history, its holy book, and the history of that holy book, its philosophy, its morality, its geography, and why some nations were dominated by islam, and others not, its prayer life, including how muslims pray and when, including all the Arabic words, and all the movements, I also took the time to learn the Arabic Language itself, Modern Standard Arabic, or al-Fus-ha, and Egyptian Arabic.
I take Sun Tzu seriously when he said “Know your enemy…”
I sat down and over the course a few weeks Actually Read the qur’an, and when I came across a word I didn’t know in Arabic, I looked it up. I had multiple translations before me, giving me, in addition to my knowledge of Arabic, a better “feel” for the Arabic words and how they can be translated.
I’ve read a good chunk of the haddith (collections of anecdotes about mohammed from those who knew him collected after his death) and the sirat-rasul-allah (basically a biography of mohammed)
When all was said and done, after I put a few bullets through my copies of the qur’an, I was left with a few conclusions:
1. islam is evil, it’s founder, mohammed was evil. it is about as close as we’re going to get to the anti-Christ. he had sex with a nine-year old girl. It’s okay to take sex-slaves from conquered people in islam. And people still are shocked when his followers do things like those in the linked article.
2. People who are shocked at the behavior of those individuals in the linked article, and al-qaeda, and isis are naive and know nothing of islam, I almost envy them in their blissful ignorance. Sadly more liberal women in the West, safe and sound in their suburbs, are going to have to see their sons beheaded and have the videos viewed across the globe to cheering crowds before they start to question what they’ve been told about islam.
3. The Crusades were a defensive action by Christendom, and if I had a time machine, I’d go back and convince them they needed to skip over Jerusalem, and go straight for mecca instead. Likewise, another Crusade is coming (There’s chatter…), whether or not the governments of the West want to support it is another matter.
4. What isis is doing in Iraq and Syria is no different than what mohammed did to the Banu Qurayza. (Google is your friend in this case.)
5. Those “Co-Exist” bumper stickers are total BS. For the last 5000 years religions have co-existed rather peacefully side-by-side, it’s just one exception, a religion founded 1400 years ago in the sands of Saudi Arabia that can’t live with its neighbors. It’s always Islam vs. [insert non-muslim here.]
6. The Beslan School Hostage crisis was a trial-run for what will happen sooner or later here in America.
7. The Boston Marathon Bombing was, like the Ft. Hood shooter, and 9/11, and the bombing of the USS Cole before it, just another jihadi attack, in a long-line of attacks going back to mohammed himself.
8. The 21st century, if islam continues on the path that islam is taking, is going to be bloodier than the 20th century.
9. If the 20th century is any guide, then we’ll see various cities in both the West and within dar al-islam reduced to radioactive rubble before the year 2100.
10. This is going to be a loooooooonnnng century…
@FrAnt Do you really think that there could be any such thing as a Catholic rape gang? I agree that the media might try to invent such a thing, but it couldn’t exist in actuality. No way no how.
In any case I would urge anyone who is interested in the ideology of these radical Muslims to watch the VICE News documentary on the Islamic State. Somehow they got somebody in there and these guys agreed to show them around their new dominion. There is doubtless a bit of IS propaganda in it but it is interesting nonetheless and it goes beyond just the scare stories (I call them ‘scare stories’ because while they are true for the most part if one only pays attention to them and ignores the context then they will miss the forest through the trees) of crucifixions and beheadings.
In any case it might be a helpful way to spend 45 minutes and with Father’s permission I will post the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUjHb4C7b94
The official report, Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham (1997 – 2013), uses the word “Muslim” only 6 times in 158 pages, and not one of those indicates Muslims as perpetrators. “Pakistani” is mentioned 22 times, most of which speak of victims; only 4 refer to Pakistani perpetrators or arrested suspects. (Mention of the “fear of taxi services” in the community may be a “wink,wink, nudge,nudge” moment.)
So it seems that even when driven to seriously investigate the evil ongoings, authorities are too timid to come out and say what needs saying.
Why is this particularly the fault of ‘the Left’?
These stories, by the way, should anyone on the other side of the pond doubt them, are true. The Rotherham situation is probably only one of many.
There are three factors not dwelt on yet in the secular press.
a)The growing confidence and independent mentality of Islamic immigrant communities, increasingly semi autonomous now in Europe and the UK
b)The contempt that Islam always has had, but is increasingly expressing, for the “decadent Christian/Secularist West. They don’t particularly distinguish between the two.
c)These groups and others are but filling a vacuum created by the retreat of Christianity from society and the Church by it silence and false “ecumenism” has been at least partly to blame.
Well maybe the penny is beginning to drop at last?
Interesting. When I first heard the story on BBC Radio there was zero mention of Muslims, or even that the persons involved were other than English origin. They interviewed one of the victims and by the way she told it, she sounded like “girl who wanted to save bad boy” story. The news also stated that these rapes occurred over a long period of time not all at once.
This does not excuse the police for ignoring what was happening but I always cautious of any article (left or right) that is written to inflame passions.
The sad thing is that the police are right. If they had really gone after these guys they would have been accused of racism, their careers would’ve been ruined and the gang would have gone right on. The other sad thing is that Rotherham is not the only place in England where this is happening.
The 1400 number is said to be a conservative estimate. One of the most sickening aspects of it is that many of these girls were classified as vulnerable and came from chaotic homes, but were judged by those who should have protected them as asking for it when what they were actually desperate for was love and kindness. It has also been claimed that the evil is still going on in Rotherham, plus in other towns where there is a large “community” of Muslims.
In answer to donadrian, the Left in UK politics (the Labour Party, as in Rotherham) always sides with ethnics against the indigenous population, making victimhood institutional and leading to any criticism labelled as hate speech/racist, which is an arrestable offence. However, the ruling Conservative Party (nominally to the right, but now slightly left of centre) has pretty much followed the same pattern.
In effect, militant Islam and virulent secularism are engaged in a pincer movement to eradicate Christianity from a country once known as the Dowry of Mary.
CDC REPORT shows that five percent of American high school students had intercourse age 13 or below, and for gay students it was much higher (scroll to page 24).
It’s not just in Muslim areas that sexual crimes are ignored. Indeed, the CDC report puts this fact and statistics on rape and violence blandly along with how many smoke and don’t eat their veggies . No crimes here, folks, just move along.
But folks there is no way this can be true, the religion of Islam is a religion of peace (Mohammed > Gandhi)and they worship the same God we do the Vatican II documents have stated so (and that is as good as gospel), our popes invite the leaders of Islam to worship in our houses of worship. Our popes have kissed the Koran, and one is a Saint so I’m not buying this tainted journalism it had to be Traditional Catholics involved in this some how, they are the true enemy of the Church and humanity, not the peace loving Muslims of the world. I am sure we will hear all the people of this religion of peace rise up against these usurpers of their faith, I beg all believers in this to hold their breath until this out cry is heard from the faithful Muslim community. Start now.
PS. Younglatinmassguy, good research, well done sir.
Why blame only the ‘left’? Look how antsy many in the Church get if anyone speaks truth about Islam. They’ll fuss about 20 years of ‘dialog’ going out the window.
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us. As we pray for the consecration you requested be fulfilled.
OT This ‘pastor’ has it right, he has given up his tax-exemption. The Catholic Church in America receives billions from the feds. And the price paid for that money is silence, and very often acquiescence.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/08/thomas-dilorenzo/the-religious-enemies-of-liberty/
Misere nobis. So very horrible.
All of Old Europe is going to face this more and more as they age and their demographics reflect the Muslim immigration picking up the slack of their contracepting & aborting themselves below population sustainability much less fruitful multiplication.
donadrian,
The story opened:
“1,400 children were discovered as victims of Muslim rape gangs and prostitution rings in Rotherham, UK, while authorities and child protection services turned a blind eye in order to avoid being called “racist.”
The Walking Left are the fathers of irrational political correctness – even to the point of being suicidal about it. The Left has given has emboldened radicalism by their ultratolerance of everything perverse, belligerent, and extreme.
YoungLatin, I don’t disagree with anything you write about Islam. But let me change the subject slightly from Islam to Muslims because there are a billion of them and millions live among us. They do not necessarily understand Islam as you and I do. Some reject the tactics of the jihadis. Others have no interest in imposing Sharia on others. They may understand Islam to be truly a religion of peace. We need these people as allies. So how do we frame our rhetoric about Islam so that we can work together?
It is just not true that Muslims are silent about the atrocities committed by ISIS and other jihadis. You can google “muslims against ISIS” and read about mass demonstrations in Europe. The fact that we do not hear them doesn’t mean they are silent. We will not find them condemning Islam.
Dear cwillia1,
while I in general do agree with what you are saying, certainly these mass demonstrations in Europe against ISIS escaped my attention too, and living in Europe I think I’d have noticed them earlier – especially given that I have noticed, both in the media and in somewhat smaller forms by passing by them personally, the Muslim mass demonstrations against the State of Israel some weeks ago.
As for another topic, the phrase “religion of peace” is to my knowledge not of Muslim origin, but, if we believe Aunt Wikipedia, was coined by [read: Western secular] “politicians in an effort to differentiate between Islamic terrorists, Islamism, and non-violent Muslims”. Now if I may to say so without expert knowledge, the idea of a “religion of peace” is quite foreign to Muslim thought including the thought of what we might understand as peaceful Muslims. Islam is a religion of fighting; and that’s not an anti-Islamic statement, either. For Islam is wrong; but that bravery, that fortitude is a virtue is right, and if Islam is remembering that while the West has forgotten it, then honor to whom honor is due. It was incredibly narrow-minded of these sort of politicians to impose – by way of “it can’t be otherwise can it” – their own view of the world on foreign religions.
Dear YoungLatinMassGuy,
for the last 5000 years religions have co-existed rather peacefully side-by-side, it’s just one exception, a religion founded 1400 years ago in the sands of Saudi Arabia that can’t live with its neighbors.
That is wrong. Religions if taken seriously (including, of course, the religion of not having a religion, or the religion not to take religions seriously) cannot by nature do anything more than tolerate each other. And tolerance is not what I would call have peace with each other and acknowledge each other’s right to existence.
Suggesting that only the Muslims make problems seems to overlook Antiochus Epiphanes, the Roman persecutions, the Thirty and Eighty Years’ War, the slaughter of Christians by the Japanese shogunate, the Nazis, on a much smaller scale the conflicts which the Sikhs in India were involved in, and so on.
They’re a false religion, and it may well be that their fighting nature is less prone to tolerance and prudence, more about violence, than the other religions’. But they’re not the exception within the cosmos of religions; no, Christianity is the exception here – because it’s the true thing. What is more, Islam is even nearer to Christianity than any of them except Judaism – which of course makes it more, not less, dangerous, since strength is usually drawn off the connection to Truth, not the disconnection.
The thing that militant Islamists take to heart is the long view of history. They remember that the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem lasted 88 years and was near the height of its power with the biggest army it ever fielded before the foolish disaster at the Horns of Hattin and they see in that the hand of God. They recall it also when the Mongols sacked Baghdad and were threatening just about their last stronghold in Egypt before the Great Khan died and pulled Hulagu back to the east, which allowed the Mameluke victory at Ain Jalut. They see the hundred year period since the Ottoman partition as a similar low period while they infiltrate & outbreed apostate Old Europe, which only resisted Islam the first time due to the rise of Christendom from the ashes of pagan Rome.
I hope it doesn’t take another Islamic sack of Rome to spur the West again and pray for another Charles Martel to remind Europe of its heritage. We live in interesting times.
My querying ‘enabled by the Left’ was because the main areas of neglect appear to be within the police and child protection agencies, which are non-political. One might as well remark that these horrific events took place under a right-wing Home Secretary.
Imrahil, were you in the streets protesting when Serbs were massacring Muslim men in Srebrenica? Let’s say you were not. Maybe you were appalled. But what do you say to a Muslim who condemns your silence? What do we say about a Moroccan shopkeeper who hears about ISIS on the radio shakes his head in disbelief about what those people half way around the world are doing and goes about his business. Maybe at dinner he comments to his family about how lucky they are to live in a place where true religion is respected. Telling him that Islam is a monstrous perversion of true religion will get nowhere with him. Condemning him for his silence will get you written off as an anti-Muslim bigot who doesn’t know what he is talking about or a self-righteous hypocrite.
Ultimately Muslims will have to decide for themselves just what Islam means and reconcile the history of their prophet and the Islamic conquests with what they believe. In the meantime we live on the same planet. We do not need to make enemies of those who could be our friends. So we get back to the same question: how can we frame the issue with ISIS and others who are oppressed in the name of Islam so that the majority of Muslims are our allies and not enemies?
Dear donadrian,
I think I can answer your question “why the left?”. I think I can answer it quite comprehensively. Could you help by explaining a little about yourself? Particularly, where are you from: America, Britain, elsewhere? (Otherwise, I might seem to be patronising, if I were to begin something like “let me explain about British society …”)
But I can make a start. You say “One might as well remark that these horrific events took place under a right-wing Home Secretary”, by whom you mean, I suppose, Theresa May. Well, putting aside her personal merits or politics, she has only been Home Secretary since 2010, and these events (although they are still going on in Rotherham and elsewhere) long predate her tenure. I can see that in your comment you do not mean to exclude that fact, and I realise that you are not really making that argument, but I would argue that the heir to Blair and his arch-modernising colleague at the Home Office have not so far changed the political culture in this respect, although perhaps we are starting to see some changes in the offing. And who can forget how influential elements of the Labour Party wished to “rub the right’s noses in diversity”, and were rather effective in making that happen?
And as for police and child-protection agencies being non-political, I’m afraid that is far from the truth. Most obviously, in Rotherham itself about a year ago foster children were removed from foster parents precisely on political grounds (see, e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-22604081).
One man who agrees with me that (certain kinds of) left-wing politics has enabled this evil is the Labour MP Simon Danczuk (e.g. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11065878/Labour-MPs-Left-ignored-sex-abuse.html). Even the former Labour MP for Rotherham, Denis McShane, admitted as such, somewhat reluctantly or, perhaps, regretfully or shamefully (I heard him interviewed about it one day last week, on the wireless).
I could go on, especially if you were to give me a bit more background.
Dear cwillia1,
I’ve just googled “muslims against ISIS” and couldn’t find anything about mass demonstrations against ISIS in Europe or elsewhere. There was some interesting and welcome strong criticism of ISIS, including at least one “fatwa”, but no mass demonstrations, so far as I could tell.
I don’t know whether we should expect or wish for demonstrations of this kind, but they’re certainly under my radar if they are occurring. (This is unlike other large-scale demonstrations, for example against Israel, which are quite common in England, at least, and in which largely Pakistani moslems are often prominent.)
Further common on the “left-wing” business:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100284604/the-self-loathing-of-the-british-left-is-now-a-problem-for-us-all/
Thomas cites Orwell here. In some of his earlier writing (The Road to Wigan Pier, if I remember correctly) Orwell had some scathing things to say about a certain kind of left-winger. And things in this respect have got worse since Orwell’s time. Orwell, frankly, sneered at these eccentrics. But now the eccentrics are in charge, and not just in England. Now we are the eccentric ones (I mean, people like me and people who, I suppose, make up the majority of Fr Z.’s readership).
Dear cwillia1,
thank you for your answer!
As for the Srebrenica massacre, the matter escaped me at the time and I think I’m rather fairly excused. (In fact, I might on fitting occasion have mentioned myself that, like it or not, on the Balkan the Muslim is the Catholic’s ally against the Eastern Orthodox Christian.)
That said, I did not see any guilt in the Muslim’s not demonstrating in masses. I am not condemning them for that. Only you said there were mass demonstrations in Europe and I said, or implied, that to my knowledge there weren’t; that is all.
I’m not expecting them either to go to spontaneous mass demonstrations. I might, though, given current political customs, expect the chief associations of Muslims, who are being asked this very question for a long time, to condemn them by formal declaration…
In the meantime we live on the same planet. We do not need to make enemies of those who could be our friends. So we get back to the same question: how can we frame the issue with ISIS and others who are oppressed in the name of Islam so that the majority of Muslims are our allies and not enemies?
Good point. That’s a practical question, though, a technical question, which goes to the politicians. I am not a politician.
Ultimately Muslims will have to decide for themselves just what Islam means and reconcile the history of their prophet and the Islamic conquests with what they believe.
And that’s what I don’t think. That may be, things being as they are, a rather desirable intermediate result which, as we all live on the same planet, helps us all live comfortably together in tolerance (tolerance rightly understood). But as for ultimate – no, ultimate it is not.
I have respect towards Islam (as in respecting an enemy), and so: just as it is not Catholics’ job to decide for ourselves what Catholicism means, but Catholicism is something objectively there, so also it is not Muslims’ job to decide what Islam means, but Islam, too, is something objectively there. We may, for all I know, be in the situation where it’s better to leave the Muslims in the illusion that Islam be something it isn’t; but as for ultimate, the real truth in such a case would be that they are just not following that part of Islam.
I also think that, for understanding at least, we had better find out what this Islam is by objective sources also, by their equivalents of our dogmas, also. (He would certainly draw an incomplete picture of Catholicism who would, judging from what people practicing, say that we have no problems with contraception.) No of course we should not assume that they follow all that, that they follow the unabrogated passage of sura 9 where it is commanded upon them to kill all the Christians for instance, and it is also worth an inquiry what they actually do adhere to. All into a complete picture; but when all is said and done – though it may be unwise to say so – a Muslim that does not follow Islam is just that, a Muslim who does not follow Islam.
Telling him that Islam is a monstrous perversion of true religion will get nowhere with him.
And I don’t say it; nor mean it. I say (if I cannot evade to pronounce on the matter) that it is false; and if he is the sincere and sensible man I hope he is, he’ll understand that to say this is but the logical conclusion of my own Christian religion. I do not, however, say or mean that it is monstrous, or that it is a perversion (in any sense except in that, of course, in which we’d call every error a perversion of the truth).
In fact I consider (from superficial knowledge) the Buddhist tenets far more sickening than Islam, and Islam is certainly nearest to Christianity of all religions except Judaism (Belloc called it a Christian heresy).
It is no surprise, of course, that greater vicinity to truth brings greater strength and thus greater danger, and that greater vicinity to (still rejected) Christians brings greater enmity.