An Example of the Muslim Rape Gang Cover-up

I have said before that our age is replete with dishonesty. A tissue of lies enforces the fashionable ideas, protects the status quo and sustains the momentum for implementing insanity. It is perhaps worth examining just one instance of this deceit.

Lloyd Evans (whom I previously wrote about rather critically) gave this short review of a play put on in late 2024 at the Royal Court Theatre in London’s prestigious “West End” theatre district. That such a play is performed anywhere, but especially at such a venue, is a mark of the prominence that lying enjoys in our society. The Royal Court Theatre dates back to 1870, the height of the Victorian era, when Britain was perhaps at its peak of self-confidence. Such confidence is long dissipated, replaced with self-hate, and now transformed into self-destruction at any cost, using any excuse, no matter how preposterous. Britain has turned inside out, as we will see.

The play put on at this once august theatre was Expendable, written by one Emteaz Hussain. It purports to show the grim reality of the gang-rape epidemic in northern English ex-industrial towns. That is, the grim reality for Muslims who are targeted by White racists emboldened by the “moral panic”. Yes, in this portrayal of the mass raping of White English girls by Muslims, the Muslims are the victims, not the White English. In order to paint such a perversely dishonest picture, the play has to lie, and lie, and lie. Evans named some of these lies in his review. (I presume that he named only some, and the play contains even more.)

Since I didn’t go to see it - you couldn’t pay me enough to do that - I will go by his review of it.

The setting is a kitchen in Yorkshire where Zara is trying to keep her family together after her son, Raheel, was outed as a rape suspect by a national newspaper. White thugs dump parcels of excrement on their porch and Zara cowers under the kitchen table, too scared to answer the door.

Let us say that, somewhere, these things have happened in real life. Somewhere, White racists have dumped excrement on a Muslim family’s porch, such that the mother is afraid to answer her door. Let’s assume that has happened. Is it even nearly as bad as what has definitely happened in the other direction? Namely, thousands of Pakistani men raping thousands of 11, 12 and 13 year-old White girls. Of course not. So, why is there a play about this, but not about the worse thing?

The racists have mounted a mass demonstration

Bizarrely, this hasn’t yet happened regarding the gang-raping specifically, but the August 2024 riots were close enough that I will concede. But then, when a community is being gang-raped by outsiders, “a mass demonstration” is the very least one should expect them to do. And if that is all they do, one should consider oneself to have got off very lightly indeed. Yet this play clearly implies that such a demonstration would be a terrible thing, wholly unjustified, and borne of evil racism on the part of the native English. It would be - it is - a mark of their wickedness, and something they should be ashamed of. Well, should the Muslim community be ashamed that a great number of its men rape White English girls? Where is the West End play shaming them, encouraging their relatives to disavow them, and authorising the educated to think badly of them?

Now the next clause makes things even more dishonest:

The racists have mounted a mass demonstration, supported by the cops

That is the Yorkshire police who habitually and systematically turned a blind eye to the gang-raping of White girls by Pakistanis, and who are utterly committed to progressivism and gleefully arrest White people for “racist” infractions. The very idea that “the cops” would be supporting a “racist” demonstration is so utterly preposterous that you almost have to admire Hussain’s chutzpah. But, for the Champagne Socialists of London who watch this play, it will probably seem quite believable that “the idiots in the provinces” are like this.

Every Muslim in town is terrified of a white vigilante gang who recently targeted a blameless Yemeni pensioner and kicked him to death.

Where are these White vigilante gangs beating brown men to death in response to the gang-raping? Are there any? Have there ever been any? And if there have, shouldn’t the real blame be put on the community that is instigating such outrage in these English men by gang-raping their young females? No, it’s the English who are guilty - guilty for being outraged by an outrageous thing being done to them.

Of course, the dishonesty is even greater than that. In order to tug at the heart strings and make the native English look even more despicable, these thugs have targeted a pensioner. An old man would be (at least slightly) less likely to be involved in rape than, say, a man in his twenties, but they’ve beaten him to death anyway. Such lack of discernment is just a mark of how stupid and racist the working-class English are, right?

It gets worse. Zara and her daughter, Sofia, join a peaceful counter-demonstration, but the heavy-handed cops arrest ten innocent Muslims and charge them with violent disorder.

Again, this is a total inversion of reality.

Meanwhile, the white thugs are free to scrawl ‘Rape capital of the UK’ across the side of the local mosque.

Well, isn’t that true? And as for them being “free” to do this, as if the British state is blithely approving of the act… I don’t know what to say.

Then they burn it to the ground.

As far as I can find, only two mosques have ever been burnt down due to arson. It is an extremely rare phenomenon. By contrast, tens of thousands of White girls have been raped by Muslims. Sarah Champion said it could be a million girls.

The useless cops arrest three of the white rioters as a token gesture.

Ah yes, the “useless cops” who don’t care about White people being racist or Islamophobic, and make only “token gestures” about such things. Which planet is Hussain living on? But more to the point, what about the liberal, well-educated audiences who will come to see this drivel? How can they tell themselves this is accurate of England today?

Unlike those Champagne Socialists, our conservative reviewer, Lloyd Evans, is skeptical. He doesn’t believe the play is realistic - but that only makes his acquiescence even worse:

This vision of a Britain where law-abiding Muslims are hunted in the streets while English vigilantes commit arson and murder with impunity may not reflect the facts on the ground. But this is how a Muslim dramatist sees our society and she deserves attention.

In exactly the way of the bumbling conservative who naively helps his enemy weaken him and conquer him, Evans says that, dishonest though Hussain might be about English society, her perspective on it “deserves attention”. To be clear: when someone is trying to undermine your society and vilify your people, you should respect her perspective and give it your attention. This might be the clearest example I have ever seen of the weakness and terminal naivety of conservatives.

Her play is very easy to follow because her stiff, simplistic characters keep making clunky speeches that explain the over-elaborate plot in minute detail.

Note again Evans’ naivety. He observes that Hussain lacks writing talent, but doesn’t question why, then, her play has been accepted by the Royal Court Theatre. If he did, he would learn that the RCT funded Hussain to write the play with a bursary, which would prompt yet more questions. But these questions don’t occur to Evans. He accepts the situation at face value, refusing to recognise that his society and ethnic group are under systematic attack. Is he a fool, a coward, or both?

Sofia tells her mum she won’t apply to university because academia is full of right-wing extremists.

So the police are racist, the media are racist, the judiciary are racist, and now academia is racist as well. Incredible. How anyone can claim that right-wing extremism is given any quarter in today’s academia is just beyond me. This is slop for self-hating middle-class imbeciles who will cheerfully gobble up any reason to hate their ethnic group.

Instead she joins “New Dawn”, a charity that confronts negative Muslim stereotypes in the press.

Such stereotypes only exist because of how a lot of Muslims behave in Britain, especially that unfortunate tendency to rape thousands of White girls.

Also, in the real world, there is no equivalent charity to confront negative stereotypes about the White working-class, such as those perpetuated by this very play. Anyone trying to run such a charity would be vilified by the media as an apologist for working-class bigotry. Indeed, the only way such a charity would be allowed to survive is by switching its remit to rehabilitating the working-class - in other words, by joining the inversion and becoming the opposite of what it purports to be.

The central character is Raheel’s aunt, Yazmin, who was forced into hiding after being condemned as a “stella” (a Muslim apostate who enjoys alcohol).

This is so that the liberal middle-class theatre-going public, so enamoured of “rebellion”, can empathise with the main character. A devout Muslim would alienate them, so instead they are given a Muslim who doesn’t quite fit into Islamic culture. Manna from heaven for the Champagne Socialist moron.

Yazmin has returned to help the beleaguered family by investigating Raheel’s exposure as a rape suspect in the media. She discovers that Zara befriended a notorious child-abuser named Sajid and paid him to refit her kitchen where he raped young white girls (and some Muslim girls too).

What this means is that the very kitchen the play is set in has been used as a venue for raping White English girls. Astonishing.

The Muslim perspective here is presumably: it wasn’t Raheel who did it, but his mother’s friend Sajid, so it’s terrible that Raheel is being unfairly named in the newspapers. The White British perspective, unconveyed by this play or any other, is: we don’t want brown men raping our girls and, if Zara is prepared to be friends with a man notorious for doing that, then she is scum as well. I’m guessing the play has it that Zara was unaware Sajid was using her kitchen for this purpose, or else uses it as a way to go after misogyny within the Muslim community.

(A separate review makes clear that the play dwells on this misogyny. As part of this it makes the claim that Muslim girls are also preyed upon by Muslim men. I find that hard to believe. Also, two reviews say that Zara’s daughter Sofia was “at risk” of being raped by Sajid. So she was at risk, but not actually raped, unlike the White girls?)

To return to Raheel… Of course it is wrong and unfortunate when someone is associated with crimes that they did not commit. But this - Raheel’s predicament - is the play getting the middle-class on side, and persuading them to condemn their ethnic fellows in the working-class. There is a huge number of Pakistani Muslims in Britain who are guilty of this egregious crime against the native people, so why focus on one man who isn’t? The implication, certainly the one that will be taken by self-righteous oikophobic middle-class theatre-goers, is that most Pakistanis accused of this crime are in fact innocent - the hapless victims of White working-class bigotry. (The same reasoning is behind the BBC making a drama about a rare case of a woman lying about being raped by Pakistanis.)

Ironically, the play achieves all of this by conceding that Zara’s house was indeed used for serial raping of young White girls. As far as I’m concerned, that concession is actually the end of the matter. Everyone associated with that house should be deported, because either they knew what was going on, or they didn’t but we shouldn’t take the risk of believing that and allowing them to stay in our country. Really, why should we? No answers to that will come, because the question is never asked - certainly not in West End theatre productions.

(A separate review of the play reveals how Raheel ended up getting wrongly accused: his photo was accidentally included in a newspaper article about a set of grooming suspects. But surely this suggests an incredible prevalence of child grooming by Muslims? A random Muslim man gets wrongly accused, but it turns out that, though he didn’t do it, his house has been used for doing it… what are the odds of that?! How many native Brits would ever say “of course I have never raped underage girls, though my kitchen has been used by a family friend for committing that crime”? The play unwittingly admits that raping the young girls of another ethnic group is a very prevalent thing among Britain’s Pakistanis - in which case, why shouldn’t the White working-class be angry with them? How can any decent person condemn them for this?)

At this point, a survivor enters. Jade Steel is a local woman who seems to have forgotten the trauma of being molested by Sajid as a child. She adores Raheel and his mum because they gave her food when she was hungry and she doesn’t care that she was abused numerous times in their home. Oh, hang on. There’s one more detail. Jade has signed a publishing deal and is due to write a book about the affair.

It sounds like the point here is either that Jade is lying about having been raped, or she was and it’s really not that big a deal to be raped. Either way, she’s going to make lots of money from it, so no need to sympathise too much with her. This is an absolute disgrace. It belittles the suffering of many thousands of White English girls, most of whom certainly don’t get publishing deals.

It’s bad enough that brown people are belittling that suffering - and indeed this play was written by one - but at least they have an obvious ethnic motivation for doing so. For them to be enabled by the many middle-class White people working at the Royal Court Theatre, including the director of this play, Esther Richardson, chills the blood.

It’s impossible to make sense of this rambling, barmy plot but there’s a fascinating message here. Some Muslims believe that the media, police and justice system are conspiring to make their lives hell. According to the playwright, this Yorkshire town is heading for civil war between the “gora” (white) community and the Muslims. It feels like Derry in the late 1960s on the eve of the Troubles.

Here Lloyd Evans himself joins in on the lying, or at least in the mindset that enables (and actually requires) the lying. He takes seriously the possibility that “the media, police and justice system” are conspiring to victimise Muslims. In doing so Evans condemns himself as a fool, a useful idiot, and a traitor to his people.

If we look at the various figures involved in this… the motivations of all the brown people need no explanation, but those of the White English people involved clearly do.

• The play is directed by Esther Richardson. Born in 1974, she would have emerged into the theatrical world of the 1990s. By that time, the arts in Britain had undergone decades of “anti-racism”, with the importance of race being cleverly denied so as to make the native British (especially those working in the arts) drop their defences and be extremely open to foreigners on the basis that racial feeling caused their own kind, the English, to be extremely racist in the past. For Richardson beginning her career in the 1990s, being non-racist would be the baseline, the absolute minimum. Then identity politics began to take over in the 2000s. Today, her generation now accept the importance of race - except for their own race, for whom identity politics would be a hideous sin. This compels them to serve the needs of foreign peoples slavishly.

• The director of the Royal Court Theatre is David Byrne, born in 1983. He declared of his own theatre company: “If we don’t take risks, there’s no point in us existing.” But what risk is there in producing a play that agrees with the government, academia, the media and every corporation in the Western hemisphere? Byrne prides himself on staging “challenging” material. He once commissioned “a piece exploring Black masculinity and mental health” after a meeting lasting just eight minutes.

• The play was funded by the Clare McIntyre Bursary, named after a northern working-class White playwright who died in 2009. Its recipients are selected by the Royal Court Theatre’s artistic team. There are six members in that team, only one appearing to be non-white, with the other five no doubt being upper-middle-class White English people drunk on progressivism. They have previously awarded the bursary to a Singaporean man and one other Muslim woman.

• The play is being reviewed by Lloyd Evans for the Spectator, which is edited by Michael Gove, an obsequious Conservative weakling who is famous in our circles for having told Jonathan Bowden that, while multiculturalism has been a disaster for Britain, to do anything about it would be “un-British”. But Evans was employed at the Spectator by Gove’s predecessor, Fraser Nelson. This is another shameless traitor, and one of the most slimy and disingenuous men in British conservatism. He has recommended lying to the working-class in order to make them accept mass immigration, then, when the mood changed, claimed that mass immigration had happened “by accident”. These are the men recently in charge of the Spectator, so no wonder a man like Lloyd Evans is employed there. If he were ever to show any backbone on these issues, he would be sacked.

To summarise, we have weak “conservative” magazine editors employing a lily-livered theatre critic who favourably reviews a play written by a foreign agitator, directed by a self-hating English woman, and designed to demonise the working-class and retard the middle-class’s understanding of the existential danger facing their ethnic group. The ultimate goal of this play - conscious or not - is to enable the raping of poor White girls to continue.

But the people who go to see it will think themselves very virtuous, and no doubt Esther Richardson’s smug defence against everything I have written here would be that, after all, I haven’t actually seen her despicable production - and her colleagues at the Royal Court Theatre would laugh with her.

This is how the educated behave in our age. They play with facts like a toddler plays with scraps of paper - no discernment, no understanding, no sense of responsibility, no fealty to the truth, no interest in the truth, no concern for the consequences.

People will look back at this age as we look back at human sacrifice in Mesoamerica. If you thought history had ended, if you thought we were past religious fervour, if you thought we had overcome superstition and magical thinking, if you thought we had become rational… you were wrong.