By CHERYL GATESWORTH
September 15, 2014 – San Francisco, CA – PipeLineNews.org - For decades the nations of Western Europe have embraced, degree by degree, the darkness that is Islam. Similar to a body infested by a parasite, ignorance and coexistence on the part of the host are possible for a while, but unless excised, the parasite will eventually destroy the host.
For the purposes of this article we will discuss only the UK because it's our Mother Country, from which we have inherited our language, love of individual liberty and our legal system. Yet of all the countries in Western Europe it is arguably the farthest along the path to total submission, to dhimmitude - a paradox. And, again sadly, its ruling structure has shown the least resistance to Islamic aggression.
One would think that a jihadist act so brutal, as for example, the 2013 butchering on the street of Lee Rigby, a British soldier, would awaken the Brits to the threat.
But that has not been the case. Instead such acts are trivialized, explained away or in some instances justified as the acts of protest taken as a last resort by suppressed and powerless minorities in the face of British “intolerance.”
A few generations ago the people of Great Britain stood ready with kitchen utensils and garden tools to repel a Nazi invasion if they had had to. Had the UK been populated with the moral cowards of today, things would have turned out differently.
Perhaps having a backbone isn't an inheritable trait.
And now we must confront another instance [except on a much wider scale] of Islamic depravity, that should, using traditional moral precepts be more difficult to explain away using the political correctness that has served so well in the past to protect the tender sensibilities of the ever so excitable European Muslims.
The scene is Rotherham, South Yorkshire, an industrial town with a population of 250,000 where some 1400 children, often as young as 11, have been recruited and victimized by Muslim rape gangs. This has taken place over the past 16 years and has been largely swept under the rug with the enormous help of a multiculturalism so perverse, it’s suicidal.
The Rotherham ring is so far the fifth to be uncovered in UK. The victims have usually been from social care homes. Now though that the story is being carried - in de minimis - by the MSM it’s been sanitized, referring to the perpetrators of these evil acts merely as Asians, rather than by their defining characteristic which is the fact that they are are of the Islamic faith.
Lest one entertain the absurd apologia so in vogue in these situations - that they hijacked Islam, allow us to suggest that it’s the reverse which is true, Islam hijacked them. The men who have engaged in this sex trafficking and in the creation of rape gangs are largely Pakistani with a smaller number being Bangladeshi.
Theologically, there is little to suggest that there’s a disconnect between the rape gangs, the Muslims who ran them, and their faith.
Under current conditions this is normative Islam on display.
Under Shari’a a Muslim man may take a non-Muslim woman to be his sex slave if she is part of the spoils of war. Since Islam is in a perpetual state of warfare against non believers, these men have been given imprimatur to rape at will.
The British, quick to torture English lexicon for the sake of defending the Muslims who have created in this systematic child-rape network, are actually referring to them as “groomers,” though how that characterization has any relevance to the real world is unfathomable.
The belief seems to be that since the “prophet” Mohammed, availed himself of such booty, he being in their minds the perfect man, his actions are worthy emulation. [see for example, Five men guilty in Rotherham Asian grooming case , Yorkshire Post]
Before you can say “but the term sex slave is hardly ever mentioned in the Qur’an,” a clarification has to be made, because in the Qur’an such unfortunate, soon to be enslaved females are euphemistically referred to as, ”that which your right hand possesses.”
What is even more shocking is that many of the cases were known previously to social workers whose job it was to protect these children. This took place because the government employees feared the political and social repercussions which would ensue from stating the truth, that these Muslim men are serial rapists.
The conviction of a number of Pakistani men two years ago and an article in The Times of London finally brought the matter to the light of public attention. Virtually all the children were from poor families, or they were runaways. They were targeted by the rape gang, often kidnapped or seduced by attention and favors and given alcohol or drugs or both. They were commonly cultivated by one of the gang members who acted as a surrogate parent. The girls and their families were threatened with death if they spoke out or if they testified. Some were doused with gasoline and told that the next step would be to set them on fire if they did not keep quiet. They were sold into prostitution, usually in the form of gang rape, and beaten for the slightest offense.
Often the girls became pregnant and either suffered miscarriages or gave live birth and had their babies taken away.
When viewed against traditional Western morality the question must be asked, "what moral universe do these social workers live in? What is there in the British hierarchy of villainy that permits a charge of racism to trump the gang rape of underage girls?"
The creativity of officials when they circle the wagons to protect Muslims is other worldly. Officials at the Rotherham Council, police, and social workers often referred to the fate of these children as “lifestyle choices” and blamed poverty and lack of family structure for their fate. Politicians were afraid to lose the Muslim [block] vote which can be the difference between victory and defeat in Rotherham.
A report by Professor Alexis Jay, former Chief Inspector of Social Work in Scotland, provided the horrific details which were delivered by her - during judicial proceedings - at the point of tears. [source, Elizabeth Grice, Rotherham sex abuse: 'The utter brutality is what shocked me most’, UK Telegraph]
The facts of these cases are by no means unique, actually it’s standard operating procedure when Muslims reach a critical mass in any society and the norm in Muslim majority nations. The persecution of Christians by Muslims throughout history and into the present is perhaps the world’s greatest unacknowledged tragedy. There is no Golden Rule in Islam, and non Muslims have no intrinsic value with females especially viewed as “easy meat.”
One can only hope that this will be a wake-up call, though it is hard to be optimistic. If it's not then the future looks grim.
How, one wonders, did the UK get to this point?
The seeds of the current tragedy began after World War II when the English people elected a series of Labour Party governments that vastly increased England’s welfare state. At war’s end (1945) and following the wartime National Unity government, Clement Atlee was appointed Prime Minister when his party won overwhelmingly by promising a cradle to the grave welfare state. Atlee's Labour Party openly proclaimed itself a socialist party. Subsequent governments continued the welfare state and once in place, there was no roll back, only growth at a slower pace.
Who then, would pay for this welfare state? The British birthrate was declining to barely replacement level. With Great Britain losing its colonies. immigration was seen as the only solution.
Fast forward to the early 1970’s.
A series of conferences began then and were termed the Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD). In this conference two sides, the Arab League and the European Community (EC), made several agreements. In return for favorable oil prices and the promise of construction projects in former colonies, the EC agreed to accept unlimited immigration and to respect the culture of the immigrants. [a citation here would be very helpful, I was unaware of this, so I doubt many readers would be] What this meant, in effect is that Muslims from Muslim majority nations would not be expected to nor encouraged to assimilate. Viewed from the Islamic perspective, the purpose of these agreements was to create the social conditions whereby Europe would become part of the Ummah – the House of Islam.
A working structure was established, guided by one European representative and one Arab representative who planned, organized and supervised the work of the EAD.
Actually the main European driving force behind this conference was French President Charles de Gaulle. De Gaulle dreamed of returning France to its former glory, to be seen as the greatest nation on earth.
But how to accomplish this?
No nation could compete with the United States in economic or military might. France, he reasoned, could win on the cultural front. French culture could prevail in the former colonies, which would then have an “Arab body with a French head.” That the head could easily be severed, while leaving a fully functional body, apparently didn’t occur to these foolish people.
Thus a Greek tragedy was set in motion. Great Britain started the long march to it doom. At each step the process could have been halted albeit with increasing difficulty but the victim would not take the necessary steps.
Using the word tragedy here, in the literary sense, is highly appropriate.
To classical playwrights, a tragedy occurs when the main character is brought to ruin because of a major character flaw or a moral weakness. The ruinous end is not inevitable in that at virtually every point in the journey toward destruction, the protagonist could change his fate.
In the case of Europe, they simply didn’t have the moral fortitude to make that choice.
A third factor (though not necessarily the least important) was the decline in England of Christianity with its strong moral absolutes. We refer here not only to the downturn in church attendance, but the absence of Christian ethics in the public square, as the light of the faith that had guided England began to dim.
In contrast, during World War II the British people [and the West in general] wrapped themselves in the protective cloak of religion and faced the Axis threat with Christian fortitude. With religion found incompatible with the welfare state it was replaced by a morally relative secular humanism; Christianity now exists largely as a remnant.
So we have a confluence of socially destructive influences here, a Britain that stood naked before an influx of immigrants - or better yet invaders - a welfare state that sapped individualism and the will to resist, and a demographic component that would permit these immigrants to assume a gradually larger percentage of the population.
Islam never enters a nation to assimilate, rather it furiously labors to impose its values on that nation. As the percentage of Muslims increases, so do their demands upon their host. In Great Britain Islam received an engraved invitation and faced a weak host.
The first act of Muslims in a host nation is to airbrush Islam until the population is convinced that it is a benign system of beliefs essentially similar to Judaism and Christianity
Nothing to see here people, move it along.
Christian clergy and Muslim imams started appearing together at “interfaith gatherings” signaling their acceptance of it under the risible claim that it’s benignly and simply, one of the three “Abrahamic” faiths. Gradually Muslim demands grew, and they attacked open displays of alcohol and pork products.
Christian holiday decorations were deemed offensive to Muslim sensitivity and began to disappear. Muslims worked to change the educational approach when dealing with the Islamic world so that the system of public instruction would be deemed more “Muslim friendly.”
Soon young English school girls began to complain about explicit sexual harassment by Muslim students, as did female instructors. Muslims insisted on the introduction of halal meat into supermarkets, and those markets that did not comply often found themselves the targets of vandalism.
In this ideology of submission, Islam went from making special demands to enforcing these demands with violence or threat thereof.
Muslims began to congregate in small towns where, when their numbers reached critical mass, they introduced their neighbors to the Shari’a…Muslim and non-Muslim alike. These areas became no-go zones for first responders who were replaced by Muslim thugs eager to enforce religious law.
Radical imams preached violent khutbas in their mosques. Immigrants brought with them several wives and many children and more often than not were on the public dole. Organizing protests and demonstrations, Muslims carried signs and chanted slogans that called for the propagation of Islam and the destruction of English society. Their counterparts were defensive, yet it was they who were forced to disperse.
There have been two beheadings in the UK thus far. There will be more.
All of this was nurtured in the mother’s milk of the insane multicultural dictum that one should not speak ill of Muslims or Islam. Great Britain has no First Amendment as we do but has historically championed free speech. The Hate Speech laws of England, Scotland, and Wales, specifically the Public Order Act of 1986 and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994, effectively chill any criticism of Islam. "Hate crime," is a criminal offense and can result in prison time and/or fines. These statutes are written broadly enough so that the intent of the offender can be inferred, and the complaining witness need only show that he felt threatened. In some cases, even reading verbatim from the Qur'an in public is considered to be a hate crime.
The rape gangs are the inevitable endpoint of permitting Islam its long march through the institutions with nobody to yelling “stop”.
It will get worse.
The British are a brave and hardy people and could still vanquish their enemy, but it is late in the day, the sun is setting. If it’s guidance they need, Britain’s greatest statesman, the wisdom of Winston Churchill would suffice:
“And now the old lion with her lion cubs at her side stands alone against hunters who are armed with deadly weapons and impelled by desperate and destructive rage. Is the tragedy to repeat itself once more? All no! This is not the end of the tale. The stars in their courses proclaim the deliverance of mankind. Not so easily shall the onward progress of the peoples be barred. Not so easily shall the light of freedom die”
©2014 Cheryl Gatesworth