What possible application could the concept of race -- any concept of race -- have to this obscenity?
Nine British Muslim men were jailed for a total of 77 years for rape and trafficking within the UK for sexual exploitation. The whole case made for disturbing reading, but somehow it was the tiny, paralysing details that made it real. Like the fact that one of the convicted men, father-of-five Abdul Rauf, was a religious studies teacher at a local mosque. Rauf asked his 15-year-old victim if she had any younger friends, and drove some of the girls to meet other men, who had sex with them despite knowing they were under-age.
The nine Muslims convicted for this siege of sexual predation were all born in Pakistan. The young girls those nine Muslims pounced upon -- "grooming" them to become prostitutes, among other things -- were all between the ages of 13 and 15, were all British-born, and were not Muslims. And I must emphasize this: Every last person involved in this horror is of the Caucasian race. In colloquial terms, all the predators and all their victims are "white."
So of course, the defendants had to claim they were being oppressed because of their race:
The 59-year-old ringleader was banned from court for calling the judge a “racist bastard”. His barrister explained that his client “had objected from the start to being tried by an all-white jury. He believes his convictions have nothing to do with justice but result from the faith and race of the defendants.” In other words, a racist who treats poor white girls as sub-human seriously believes it is he who is the victim of racism, when he is called to account for organising the gang-rape of under-age females.
I doubt that that ringleader sincerely believes he's the victim of racism.
There's a war on. No, not the business in Afghanistan. This war is worldwide. The aggressor is a non-state-actor that calls itself "the religion of peace." That's two lies for the price of one: Islam is neither a religion nor is it peaceable. But we'll leave that for another screed; there are more important points to be made.
For the moment, the war is being prosecuted actively only by the aggressor. Muslims have learned that their reputation for volatility and violence can be used to reap social, commercial, and political concessions. They've also learned that Islam's facade as a religion can be used to avert the sort of scrutiny its adherents' behavior has properly earned. They've learned how to play on the unearned guilt Negro race-hustlers have nurtured in Western Caucasians these past few decades, even though the great majority of Muslims in Western countries are Caucasian. And because the great majority of non-Muslims are not yet emotionally prepared to recognize that a state of war exists in which we are all combatants, the relatively small percentages of Muslims in America and elsewhere are steadily imposing themselves, their "religion," and their seventh-century barbarism on the rest of us.
Deny it all you please. It's happening. The outrages in France and Britain are just examples of what happens when the Muslim fraction of a nation rises to certain percentages. They're outriders of what Americans can expect here in the Land of the Formerly Free if our Muslim fraction is permitted to increase. Significant violations of law and equity are already occurring in Dearborn and elsewhere Muslims have concentrated.
Reflect for a moment on this: Of the Muslim suicide bombers involved in the 7/7 bombings in London some years ago, one wore a suicide vest that failed to go off. The fizzle was nevertheless noticed by the other passengers on the bus he rode. When those passengers, perhaps not yet aware of the fates they'd escaped, turned toward their would-be assassin, his very first words were "I have rights!"
Take note of this: Simon Danczuk, the Member of Parliament for Rochdale, the site of these predations, was quick to state that the great majority of "Asian" men are "extremely respectful of women."
"Asian?" Is that intended to rope in Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Taoists, and so forth? Is the idea to suggest that the predators were of the Mongolian race, rather than the Caucasian? Or is it to avert objective examination of the misogynistic practices Islam enjoins upon its male adherents? Perhaps the issue would be all too clear were Islam's dictates about the treatment of women openly discussed.
Muslim men are commanded to treat women as inferior creatures: chattels of whoever possesses them, completely lacking any rights against their owners. They are taught that any sexual excesses a Muslim man commits, or is tempted to commit, are the fault of a woman, for "exposing herself," or otherwise acting to incite lust. Finally, they are taught that a Muslim man may rightfully take any non-Muslim as a slave, whenever he finds it practical to do so. Don't take my word for it. Read the Qur'an, and the Sunnah, and the ahadith and verify these things for yourself.
"Extremely respectful of women," eh? This must be a meaning of "respectful" I wasn't previously aware of.
One consequence of this "extreme respect" is a climate of fear that pervades the public spaces of any community that's home to a significant number of Muslims. Women are afraid to go unescorted in public; that's against Islam. They're afraid to dress according to Western norms; Islam teaches that a woman must conceal her entire body, except for her face and her hands. The infestation of Western European countries by Muslims has persuaded many non-Muslim women to adopt Muslim dress, at least in public, and not to venture onto the streets without a male companion.
Just how compatible are Western notions such as the equality of the sexes with Muslims' "extreme respect" of women?
Of course, Islam isn't entirely about relations between the sexes. Neither is it particularly concerned with worship or ritual. Its principal focus is the totalitarian subjugation of the entire world, such that Islam shall be the only religion practiced anywhere -- and mandatory for everyone.
Again: Don't take my word for it. Read the Qur'an. There are more than one hundred verses, all of them "Medinan" and therefore supersessive of the earlier "Meccan" verses, that preach the obligation of holy war in the service of Islam. The Qur'an explicitly states a requirement that all Muslims contribute to the jihad and the expansion of Dar al-Islam in whatever ways they can.
Muslims have acted on those dictates with perfect consistency for fourteen hundred years. When they are weak in numbers and resources, they bide their time. When they have swelled sufficiently to act, they act. They agitate relentlessly for special privileges, special accommodations, and special status, whether by intimidation, violence, or the modern substitute for warfare: political pressure.
And they do as they please with whatever women come under their power.
The atrocities in Britain might finally be galvanizing some resistance among Englishmen who remember what life was like in a free society that observes Christian norms. In France, Holland, Germany, and so forth, matters are less clear. Here in America, matters have yet to come to a head in a fashion visible enough to alert most Americans to the danger.
Meanwhile, Muslims continue to pour into this country. Between three and four million are already here. As I said earlier, there are already reports of Muslim demands for special privileges, special accommodations in schools, workplaces, and public facilities, and hostility toward us "infidels," in those communities where they've concentrated. And we have charming developments such as Islamberg to contemplate...to the extent our Legacy Media permit us to learn about them.
Whenever so much as a question is raised about these things, Muslims and their mouthpiece-groups immediately scream "RACISM!"
The larger this tumor is permitted to grow, the harder and more painful it will be to excise.
Food for thought.