Tuesday, 09 September 2014

White-slave Trade in the U.K.

Written by 

Imagine you’re an 11-year-old working-class girl. Like so many children in this troubled world, maybe you don’t get the attention you crave at home. Or perhaps you’re just a normal early adolescent yearning to feel like an adult. So along comes a boy, older than you are but still a lad, who takes an interest in you. He makes romantic overtures, showering you with gifts and sweet-talking you. You’re flattered by his attention and intrigued by his exoticism; he’s a Muslim, a “foreigner” — just the kind of status the multiculturalism you’ve imbibed tells you is superior. And the boy uses manipulation. “What, you don’t like Pakistanis?” he might say. “You’re not a racist, are you? Is it that your parents wouldn’t let you date a Muslim? Aren’t you grown up enough to make your own decisions?”

And you do decide — to make him your “boyfriend.” You bond with him; you feel love for him. But then something happens: He introduces you to drugs and alcohol. He then pressures you into having relations with his family. His friends come next. And then, as the descent continues and the mask comes off fully, you’re being raped and pimped out for money, sometimes abused, tortured, and terrified into submission. And the threats are substantial. You may be told that, should you talk, your mother will be raped. Or your brother killed. Or your house burned down.

Groomed to Doomed

No, this isn’t Egypt, or Sudan, Yemen, Libya, or Iran. It’s not ISIS-controlled Syria or Boko Haram’s Nigeria. But it may as well be. Even though you’re in Britain, any calls you make to social services are to no avail, and the police dismiss you, sometimes justifying their inaction with the notion that you’re just a “tart.” You’re now firmly in the clutches of what some call Muslim “grooming gangs,” a name alluding to the process whereby a vulnerable child is prepared by a predator for a life of sexual servitude.

The New American recently reported on the tragic case of the northern English town of Rotherham, in which a white-sex-slave trade continued unabated and unchallenged for years, with authorities cowed into silence by political correctness, by the fear of being labeled “racist.” The result was that 1400 known victims were brutalized between 1997 and 2013, enduring “rapes by multiple perpetrators, mainly from Britain's Pakistani community” and being “trafficked to other towns and cities in the north of England, abducted, beaten, and intimidated,” reported the Associated Press. The AP also quotes Scottish social-work advisor Alexis Jay, who investigated the Rotherham abuse. She said she was “very shocked” and reported, “There were examples of children who had been doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight, threatened with guns, made to witness brutally violent rapes and threatened they would be next if they told anyone.”

Joining the Muslim gangs in enforcing this wall of silence were the British authorities themselves. For instance, one U.K. Home Office whistleblower who reported the Rotherham pedophilia was forced into “diversity training” and told “You must never [again] refer to Asian men,” and your “awareness of ethnic issues” needs to be raised.

But because this white flag was raised long ago, say critics, the Rotherham case is merely one tentacle in a wide-ranging beast of abuse — one enabled by the embrace of a truth-stifling multiculturalism. One person making this case is the Law and Freedom Foundation’s Peter McLoughlin in his work “Easy Meat”: Multiculturalism, Islam and Child Sex Slavery. Relating information about the coverup, he writes:

According to the reports of some retired police officers, the grooming operations have been in place since the 1970s.… We cannot think of a worse child-care scandal in Britain in the last 40 years. As many as 10,000 schoolgirls may have fallen victim to these gangs. The girls’ lives, and those of their families, were wrecked by the gangs: they were all failed by the professional agencies who were supposed to take care of children. Successive child-protection laws from the 1980s onwards were made to play a subservient role to maintaining multiculturalism.… The legal protections of a generation of schoolgirls were readily abandoned.

McLoughlin then writes that a British parliamentary report finally acknowledged the problem in 2013, but still tried to downplay it:

Whilst the Parliamentary report simplistically singled out the councils of Rotherham and Rochdale for criticism, we have shown that there is reason to believe that this is a national problem. The gangs can be expected to be operating in almost every major town in England…. Given the preponderance of Muslim men among the perpetrators, and given the spread of the incidents across the country, it is likely that the only towns where the gangs will not be operating, will be those towns without a mosque (but even there, with the national network the grooming gangs have established, they may be shipping girls into those towns on demand).

Illustrating multiculturalism’s power to silence, McLoughlin relates the experiences of Andrew Norfolk, who conducted a study of the Muslim white-sex-slave trade. Despite being a prominent journalist for respected newspaper The Times, nobody from the child-care professions would even speak to him. Wrote McLoughlin:

These were public servants, who would not talk about child-rape and prostitution, which they knew had been going on for years. They were not the rapists. They were not being paid by the criminals. But political-correctness and multiculturalism had left them too scared to speak about these horrific crimes. No wonder these grooming gangs felt untouchable.

Moreover, McLoughlin continues:

When he testified before parliament, Andrew Norfolk said that after he published his analysis of the pattern of exploitation in January 2011, showing that Muslim men were massively over-represented as the perpetrators, suddenly he:

was contacted by so many people who had refused to speak to me before. When you have a Director of Children’s Services ringing and saying, “My staff are jumping for joy in the office today because finally somebody has said what we have not felt able to say,” and when you have very senior police officers saying exactly the same.

And McLoughlin writes of yet another effect of multiculturalism: blinding the girls and others to the danger. He wrote, “The police and local council chose to keep parents in the dark, leaving schoolgirls unprotected and parents unaware of the risks and threats their daughters faced.” There have even been campaigns to ban documentaries such as Edge of the City and instructional films such as My Dangerous Loverboy that warn of the Muslim grooming-gangs. As for the victims, “If the politically-correct brainwashing has been successful, a schoolgirl may even consider herself ‘racist’ for refusing the advances of these Muslim men,” writes McLoughlin. He then issues a scathing condemnation of multiculturalism, calling it:

a short-sighted and cowardly doctrine, designed to suppress the conflicts in value systems of different cultures. It has meant that for 20 to 50 years, there has been mounting pressure (driven by a metropolitan elite who mostly live in middle-class, monocultural, Anglophone enclaves) to suppress any signs of the cultural conflict between the host culture and some antagonistic minority cultures. In the context of the suppression of information and inaction on the grooming gangs, thousands of innocent schoolgirls have had their lives ruined … [all] so that the middle-class, monocultural elite did not have to entertain the disturbing idea that some cultures think that slavery is legitimate, and that a 50 year old man having sex with a 9 year old girl is an act of piety.… These schoolgirls’ lives were sacrificed in order to delay the time when the project of multiculturalism must be declared an abject failure.

And what cultural realities does McLoughlin say Western elites are denying? He quotes Sheikh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni — who had in May 2011 said that “we are in the era of jihad [holy war]” — and then explained in a later Arabic TV interview:

Spoils, slaves, and prisoners are only to be taken in war between Muslims and infidels. Muslims in the past conquered, invaded, and took over countries. This is agreed to by all scholars — there is no disagreement on this from any of them, from the smallest to the largest, on the issue of taking spoils and prisoners. The prisoners and spoils are distributed among the fighters, which includes men, women, children, wealth, and so on.

When a slave market is erected, which is a market in which are sold slaves and sex-slaves, which are called in the Qur’an by the name milk al-yamin, “that which your right hands possess” [Koran 4:24]. This is a verse from the Qur’an which is still in force, and has not been abrogated. The milk al-yamin are the sex-slaves. You go to the market, look at the sex-slave, and buy her. She becomes like your wife, (but) she doesn’t need a (marriage) contract or a divorce like a free woman, nor does she need a wali. All scholars agree on this point — there is no disagreement from any of them.

This explains, say critics, why Muslim flesh traders, from the Middle Ages and into modernity, would capture young European and African boys, castrate them, and sell them into slavery. And it explains why Tripolitan envoy Sidi Haji Abdrahaman told Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, after they asked him in 1785 how his Barbary state claimed the right to seize and enslave American sailors, that it “was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave.”

Speaking of duty, however, the bigger issue is that a faithless people didn’t do theirs. Instead of protecting the least among us, they allowed the slavery of their very new creed to protect the slavery of a very, very old one.

Please review our Comment Policy before posting a comment

Whatfinger Featured Videos:

Affiliates and Friends

Social Media