Protecting Brand Islam

3,272 words

An entire generation of non-Muslim schoolgirls has been sacrificed to multiculturalism.
Peter McLoughlin, Easy Meat

The report uncovers a concerning obsession with Islam, portraying Muslims through a lens of suspicion and hostility.
The Muslim Council of Britain, from a complaint against GB News

America has radical Islam back on its agenda. The New Orleans attack has reminded a nation in transition that Islam, radical or otherwise, is not going away and they may heed the words of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who is of the opinion that there is no radical Islam. There is only Islam. There will be many “ordinary” Muslims who are quite happy for ISIS and other Islamic franchises to do the heavy lifting, and much depends on America’s attitude to Islam en masse.

After this latest jihadi episode, however, the FBI immediately fumbled the ball by flatly denying that the Bourbon Street carnage was a terrorist attack. This announcement was made semi-coherently by a black woman with a nose-piercing. It was reversed straight away, and one of the first rules of responding to an Islamic attack, “lockstep”, was broken.

It may, then, be worthwhile for the US to watch the immediate response in the UK following similarly inspired attacks, as well as the extension of this reflexive and defensive reaction into higher and more powerful levels of the state. In short, it may pay the incoming Trump administration to watch the British deep state in action as it fulfils one of its primary mandates: Protect Brand Islam.

There is now in Britain a well-oiled, smooth-running piece of deep-state machinery designed and built with one objective, which is to place all available legal, cultural, and media-based defenses around a particular religious minority in the event of a serious crime being committed by one of their co-religionists. In Britain, after such an incident, government departments, social services, the police, security forces and, above all, the media, all link arms and walk forward in a straight and unswerving line. They have one objective: Protect Brand Islam. The first imperative is to get the media language right, and the key term is “terrorism”. In Britain, “a terrorist attack” is code for “a Muslim did it”, but it is important to keep the word to the fore. In this way, the abstract notion of “terrorism”, rather than Islam, is responsible for the latest atrocity, as though the ghosts of the IRA and Baader-Meinhof somehow share the culpability.

Next comes the warning against online speculation, and it is not a warning to be scoffed at. “Speculation”, from the Latin speculum, a mirror. But it’s one of those two-way mirrors you see in cop movies so suspects can be watched. And if you speculate online – even correctly – you are being watched and you may be doing any future speculation in jail.

Then, if and when the suspect turns out to be a Muslim, several operations begin. An early card played is often that of mental health issues. Now, while an argument could be made that Islam and belief in its tenets merit its own entry in DSM V, this is nevertheless a regular strategy as the brand-protection team get into high gear. The aim is to allay the notion that it was the attribute of Islamic belief that caused whatever slaughter we are talking about, and instead find another attribute: mental illness, online radicalization, personal grudge, whatever works. Then there are one or two auxiliary strategies, really just topping and tailing the defense, squaring everything away. The first is the “fear of the anti-Muslim backlash”. This is an entirely fictitious concern, an offshoot of taqiyya, and serves only to reinforce victim status. Finally, there is the ever-present fear of the “far right” who may “use the incident to their advantage.” This is more chimerical nonsense as there is no far right in the UK, but it all serves to muddy the waters.

Next, it’s the show trials. While usually a creature of sluggish habits and glacially slow movement, the British judicial system suddenly became as sleek and fast as a panther in the wake of the Southport riots, caused by the killing of three little girls by a Muslim. The presence of Islam in a criminal act is very dangerous for white social media users, and this “public square” is far better policed than public spaces in the real world. Really, it is. There are police officers whose sole job it is to trawl through social media, and they will be concentrating on criticism or implication of Islam. In Britain, nine people a day are currently being arrested for social media offences. Now that Elon Musk has publicly supported Islam’s most vocal British critic, Tommy Robinson, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has even suggested that it is a crime to “retweet Elon Musk”. Robinson is a very important component of this machinery of brand protection.

Robinson is not considered here for his agenda or his allegiances, but simply as a significant piece in the puzzle. Whether or not he is a political prisoner is a moot point, but he is certainly a politicized one. Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK, was recently pressed to make his position on Robinson clear, the activist having publicly endorsed the politician’s party. Farage’s distancing himself from Robinson revolved around the latter’s claim that he is a political prisoner, but this is a complex problem of definition.

In 2020, Christoph Valentin Steinert reviewed 366 definitions of political prisoners used in (mainly English language) academic literature, and reduced them to the following:

Political prisoners are defined as individuals that are convicted and incarcerated in politically biased trials (or executive decisions in the absence of any trials). Trials are deemed politically biased if they are endorsed by the government and (a) lack a domestic legal basis, (b) violate principles of procedural justice, or (c) violate universal human rights.

Viewed from any angle, the British deep state wants Robinson in jail and at maximum risk either from Muslim prisoners or the mental health problems associated with long-term solitary confinement, a status he currently holds. This is how the metapolitical becomes the political, and it is to the highest seat of power – and thus of the protection of brand Islam – that we now turn.

The political wing of Islam’s brand-protection team is now operating with impunity. Jess Phillips has the wonderfully Soviet job title of Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Safeguarding and Violence against Women and Girls, and technocratic governments have an almost animistic belief in the power of words in profusion, as though some powerful juju is at work. The local council for the northern English city of Oldham did what no one would dream of doing in normal circumstances, which is to ask the government to intrude into the life of its people. Governments don’t usually need an invite to do that.

But what Oldham Council wanted was a government-led inquiry into the so-called “grooming gangs” operating in their city. Four months after they made a formal request to Phillips, it was turned down. It was not appropriate, Phillips counter-intuitively stated, for the government to intervene. And it’s not as though this government doesn’t know how to hold an inquiry or review, having commissioned 70 in their six months in power. But now, and partly boosted by social media, this story has blown up in Starmer’s face, and Labour are struggling to counter it.

A current political intrigue without Elon Musk would be like Hamlet without the Prince, and he duly entered the frame. Phillips, said the world’s richest guy, should be in jail. But he also made two less acerbic points. The head of the Crown Prosecution Service when the gangs were at their height – and yet remained uninvestigated and so unprosecuted – was none other than Sir Keir Starmer or, as Jess Phillips now refers to him, “my boss”.  In the Protect Brand Islam team, Starmer is Phillips’ line-manager, and that’s someone you don’t want to annoy, especially when he doubles as PM. So, her fealty does not, shall we say, lie with the abused girls in Oldham her silly job title suggests ought to be her remit. Musk is both astute and correct, even if he did go back to grand pomposity by suggesting King Charles III dissolve Parliament, and adding that Jess Phillips was a “rape genocide apologist”. Perhaps she might add that to her title. But there is another, simpler reason for Phillips’ reluctance to lead an inquiry into a national scandal, an inquiry which would have all the weight of the government behind it and not just the limited resources of a local county council.

At the General Election last July, Phillips held onto her seat by a whisker, her margin of victory in a heavily Muslim area dropping from 14,000 votes to just over 600. Brand protection teams do not just work for the client. They also have their own careers in mind, and Phillips’ vote share went to an independent who campaigned on the Gaza ticket, something she can’t really do. So, she would be well advised to stick to things she can do, like not commissioning government enquiries into alleged Muslim grooming gangs. In fact, best to keep quiet about them altogether. And stay off the media, to whom we now turn.

The BBC, Channel 4, and Sky News are not touching this story with a long pole. Musk has called them part of a “state-sponsored evil”, and this is the omission media in full flight, in both metaphorical senses. Actually, an immediate correction. Channel 4 are indeed releasing a documentary on the grooming-gang scandal. It’s called Liar, and concerns one girl who fabricated a story of having been abused by Pakistani-heritage rape gangs, rather than the many thousands who did not. Sky have been running with an assault conviction against a Reform UK politician from 19 years ago rather than potentially the biggest British political story of this century.

What of the right-of-center media, rare species that it is in the UK?

Matt Goodwin is a statistician by trade but also something of a rising star at GB News, the type of profile politicians would normally climb over one another for studio time with, especially to virtue-signal about violence to women. Goodwin invited Phillips onto his show to talk about the scandal, and her office didn’t even deign to reply. There is something of Versailles about Westminster under Labour, and not in a good way. Goodwin did have Reform UK MP Rupert Lowe on, a middle-aged gentleman who is starting to become noticed by those on the Right. Both Goodwin and Lowe agreed not to use the term “grooming gangs”, and I feared the politically correct worst. No, they said. We’re going to call them what they are, “rape gangs”. Commendable, although someone, somewhere in the corridors of the deep state, will have heard that and taken a note of the names.

Social media has always harbored its grooming apologists, exemplified by British politician Naz Shah. She said the quiet part out loud some time before that phrase passed into vogue, when she retweeted the following in 2017: “Those abused girls in Rotherham and elsewhere just need to shut their mouths. For the good of #diversity”.

Diversity is certainly a god to be feared if he demands that level of sacrifice. Shah claimed the repost was an accident, it almost goes without saying.

There have been commendable journalistic efforts to penetrate this governmental omèrta. Charlie Peters, a reporter with GB News, has done sterling work on the grooming gags, and has confirmed that there has not been a single prosecution for gross misconduct or dereliction of duty anywhere in any of the departments concerned. Also, a veteran campaigner against the gangs is Maggie Oliver, ex-police officer turned whistleblower who has worked tirelessly for that old, forgotten blind woman, justice. The government defend their inaction by noting that a report on child safety was already published in 2022, and took a full seven years. Of that Biblical timespan, Ms. Oliver states, two weeks were allotted to the grooming gangs. Of that, 95% of speaking time was allotted to high-ranking police officers and social services managers. Nothing from the victims. The only time victimhood goes unremarked is when the victims are white. And they are not only victims of sexual abuse. There is worse.

A report in The Daily Telegraph states that one of the victims of a gang in Blackpool was killed and her body chopped into kebab meat, literally into kebab meat, that’s not a metaphor. She was served up in kebabs. What times are we living in? The trouble is, that little insight into the Pakistani fast-food business was 18 years ago. As with any social dysfunction going back decades rather than years – and child-rape among Muslims is alleged to go back to the 1970s – you just have to ask yourself whether the situation, and the nature of its cause, is likely to have improved or got worse in the interim.

Of the many hours of media discussion I have seen on the rape gangs, there has been one glaring omission from the conversation. In 2016, Peter McLoughlin published a book called Easy Meat: The Inside Story of Britain’s Grooming Gangs. It’s a harrowing book, but it is crammed with detailed allegations over many of the exact instances of Muslim child rape resurfacing today, and which have never seen McLoughlin sued. Of all the experts, ex-police officers, news pundits, presenters and politicians I have seen talking about this topic, no one to date has mentioned McLoughlin or the book. Why? It’s not because McLoughlin has co-authored books with the pariah Tommy Robinson, because one of their joint efforts is currently on sale at Amazon. Easy Meat, however, is not. And so, welcome Amazon to the Islamic brand-protection team.

Finally, how do these various scandals and their either coming to light or remaining in the shadows play out at council level? A tale of two councillors is illuminating if somewhat selective. It serves to set the tone in councils with large “Asian” populations (that term also serves to include the Chinese and so on in the category “Asian”, and is more brand protection), from both sides of the ethnic and religious divide. In 2018, the council in Rotherham – the epicenter of the whole grooming gang scandal – was forced to apologize to whistleblower Jayne Senior, who helped uncover the gangs. At the time, instead of the investigation she had hoped to instigate, she herself was placed under investigation by the council. In the town of Rotherham, one in every 73 Pakistani-heritage men was eventually prosecuted for child abuse. That’s the ones they caught.

At around the same time, and back in Oldham, Shabir Ahmed was employed by the council as a Welfare Rights Officer. Despite rumors and warnings about his behavior, Ahmed was never placed under any form of investigation. He is currently serving a 22-year jail sentence for crimes committed as ringleader of one of Oldham’s child-grooming gangs. This is the same council Jess Phillips refused to support with an inquiry. The leader of Oldham Council, Amanda Chadderton, had this to say about the gangs of which Ahmed was a member while a welfare officer:

We fully accept the findings of this independent report. It highlights clear failings, where our services at the time were not good enough to protect vulnerable young people suffering the most awful abuse.

Not only that. Your services at the time included those provided by Ahmed to under-age white girls, who he raped and abused both sexually and racially. You people don’t need an inquiry. You need an exorcist.

The kafir don’t, of course, do everything in the way of brand protection for Islam. The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) is, effectively, the biggest lobby group in the UK. If Oldham Council want an enquiry, they won’t get it. If the Muslim Council wants one, civil servants will be working overtime to hit deadlines. They have rather cleverly installed a woman, Zara Mohammed, as their president, thus pre-empting criticisms of patriarchy. Not that any leftist would dare make such criticism of a non-white organization. The cultural territory controlled by the MCB has many no-go zones.

The MCB’s greatest concern is Islamophobia, which is both damaging to brand Islam in its expression, and indicative of kufr insolence for the same reason. The current definition of Islamophobia was drawn up by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims, they being the only ethnic or religious minority to be afforded their own such cross-party parliamentary committee. It reads as follows: “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”

Even in today’s epistemological free-for-all, this is an extraordinary definition. Firstly, it is a masterpiece in miniature of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP), as two words – “racism” and “Muslimness” – are each repeated twice in a 19-word sentence. Secondly, it proves the ultimate redundancy of the “Islam is not a race” argument beloved of dissidents everywhere. That it is true is no longer important. Finally, “expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness” are now absolutely under governmental – and therefore legislative – protection. This means de facto blasphemy laws with state-guaranteed judicial punishment for non-Muslims who fail to comply. The MCB’s press-release on Islamophobia announces a conference entitled “Islamophobia as a Specific Form of Racism and Discrimination: New Global and Transnational Challenges.” Visitors from 32 countries are expected to attend, and include “scientists”. Perhaps Islamophobia is about to be proven to exist under laboratory conditions, and so avoiding this evil will just be a question of “following the science”.

Like it or not, you have to respect the growth of Muslim power within – and even aided by – the British establishment. And that power has a potential provisional wing in the growing army of reservist Muslims potentially being assembled in 4-star barracks across the UK. There are currently 40,000 people on the UK’s terror watch list, including 900 active investigations into 3,000 people. That’s a lot bigger than the IRA ever were.

The protection of brand Islam is possibly the most co-ordinated governmental project of the current age in Great Britain. It is required as a priority if Labour are to consolidate the Muslim vote, a bloc which grows daily. The police have effectively gone rogue on this one, officers reportedly dismissing the claims of underage victims because, by their provocative actions, they had “given their consent”. The age of consent in the UK is 16. Some of these girls were as young as 12. They cannot have given their consent, in any legally recognizable sense. The police are making the law up as they go along. Elsewhere, fellow officers found an 11-year-old in the company of “Asian” men. She was arrested for being drunk and disorderly. A father who went to an address to remove his daughter from a similar group of men was also arrested. And that’s the law at its point of application. The brand protection works flawlessly at the legislative level. Thus, the leader of a Rochdale drug gang could not be deported as he suddenly announced he was gay, and would be at risk if returned to his own country. The Labour MP for Rochdale used to be Simon Danczuk, who has since reported that he was told at party level not to mention “child-grooming”, and there was immense pressure not to do so. Welcome to the machine.

The government is watching and protecting everyone except the people they should be watching and protecting. Or perhaps Muslims really are frightened of a backlash from the “far right”. It’s a pity there is no far right for them to fear. Perhaps someone should start one.