Heinz Buschkowsky, mayor of the Berlin problem-district Neukölln(41% immigrants), has written a book that will unleash a lot of discussion. Bild [a leading German tabloid] has published exclusive excerpts:
At this point my case is more about the daily powerlessness
in a world where shoppers walk through the supermarket, collect
products, pass the cashier without paying, and make clear to the cashier
what will happen to her when she calls the police.
There, where five persons walk abreast over the sidewalk and all
others should make way. There, where possibly everyone is gazing into
nothingness before the traffic light to avoid trouble with the
streetfighters in the car next to you and being asked: “Do you have a
problem? We can resolve it here and now!” There, where small children are asked for a ‘road tribute’ or a
‘consumption tax’ for the use of the playground. Where young women are
being asked if they wish to have a ‘fertilisation process’. Where people
throw their softdrink over the head of the bus driver when he asks for
your bus ticket. This simply puts you in a bad mood, just by reading it.
As long as we pursue a policy of all-understanding and all-forgiving
and make clear to the people that we are not thinking about changing
these conditions, because this neglect of manners belong to ‘cultural
identity’ and ‘openness to the world,’ we will only find lukewarm
partners for a genuine successful integration policy.
Usually it is the elderly who suffer under this territorial behavior,
or the very young who find out who has the final say on the streets.
There is a demonstrative neglect of manners such as courtesy or
consideration — the simplest rules for how to behave toward others in the
public. That is the issue which makes people think: Where am I at the
moment? Is this still my town, my homeland?
That’s why at some point many come to the conclusion: I don’t
like these people. If they don’t want to live together with me, I also
don’t want to live together with them.
These are not excessive incidents, but the goal of the “top dogs” is
all about demonstarting that the Germans have nothing to say; they don’t
care about the rules at all. They are not completely without success.
For example, in the Sonnenallee of Neukölln cars are often parked
three abreast. The first car is on the sidewalk, the second in the
normal parking spot, the third on the street, i.e., in the first driving
lane.When the drivers are unlucky, a car stops in the second lane and
the driver loudly starts talking with the people who are drinking thea
or coffee in front of the cafe. Don’t make the mistake of honking or
getting out of your car. You might end up in an uncomfortable situation.
Any problem that you might have can be ‘solved’ directly
[i.e., by confrontation]; or when you think that you have something to
say about manners as a German, they will show you that you can lick
their boots. The police patrols don’t have a different experience.
Police officers are careful not to come within arms’ length of a
person. It could happen that suddenly a cap or other things will be
taken. Loud talking starts, which is unintelligible for anybody, but
nobody knows whose car it is and the police should just proceed and
don’t bother them.
All this is happening with an agressive posture and with an agressive
tone. If the situation gets out of control, the police have to call for
reinforcements and really must restore the situation, there may well be
physical violence.
Afterwards it can happen that the police officers are
questioned by their team leader—asked if they have ever heard about the
ground rule of proportionate conduct. Asked if they were aware that
resistance was to be expected. Asked whether they are aware of how such
conduct will be judged by the judicial system.
These judicial procedures usually end up with the acquittal of the
traffic ruffian, in which case the police officers should be happy that
they have not been convicted. Many judges are not even inclined to let
the police do their government-assigned work of regulating traffic; they
are not inclined to support them by applying the law.
The aggression and other difficulties in enforcing the law that
police officers have to endure while doing their duty do not trouble
these “do-gooder judges” with no firsthand experience.
Gaertner, the police commissar who was active in Neukölln for decades
recently told me that he could not recall ever reading a report of a
handbag theft or a robbery by an immigrant youngster on a woman with a
headscarf [i.e., a non-German].
The enemy are the hated Germans; they are the target of their
agression, and they have nothing to counter the flashmobs: via
cell-phones numerous people appear in mere minutes who directly start to
behave threatingly. Germans are considered easy targets.
Germans are considered easy targets.
It can happen to anybody on a normal day. It can happen to you that
you experience a suprise at a normal traffic accident, particularly when
the person you collided with is easily recognisable as an immigrant.
In that case you and the other driver are quickly surrounded by
numerous “witnesses,” who happen to have it seen very clearly. The man
behind rearended your car, but they will swear that you have callously
driven your car backwards into his car.
When in doubt, the ground rule is to help the ethnic sisters and
brothers. What is true or not has no value in the case of a
“disbeliever” [i.e., those in outgroups have no moral standing—an case
of moral particularism]. These are some of the small experiences that
makes the people here so “happy.”
We Germans educate our children to be non-violent. We reject
violence in encounters and teach that to our offspring. Others teach
their children to be strong, brave and ready to fight. The ground rules
basics are simply different from the beginning.
Heinz Buschkowsky’s book Neukölln ist überall [Neukölln is everywhere] appeared on Septemebr 21st at Ullstein Verlag. Translated by Peter Stuyvesant
/176 Comments/in Costs of Multiculturalism, Featured Articles, Immigration/by ChristianThere
is a rising tide of aggressive anti-Semitism in Europe. This primarily
comes from Muslim youth. In cities like Malmo, Paris and London, Jewish
religious life is coming under attack by Muslim youth. I do not think
this is acute conflict, but at least Jews are not as well-protected as
before. The Jewish establishment have always pushed for new laws to protect
their interests but now, when there millions of Muslims and Africans in
Europe it is not as easy as before. Muslims and Africans are quite
difficult to blame, because that would undermine the elitist notion that
immigration is “always good and always provides economic and cultural
value” to the West. The only way for the politicians to protect the
society is to establish new departments that control public opinion and
increase surveillance and law enforcement. Their hope is that the
conflicts arising from multiculturalism are manageable. They will not
change immigration policy.
Last night there was a large debate between the leaders of the eight
parties in the Swedish Parliament. It was only the Swedish Democrats
that wanted to lower the immigration levels (by 90 percent). The
conservative, liberals and socialist parties wanted no change in policy
and the Green Party said they wanted a policy of more open borders. The
key argument from the establishment was “humanism”, “anti-racism”,
“human rights” and that these immigrants will soon show that they are an
asset to the Sweden. They also told stories about poor Somali children. It was quite extraordinary that they could not put forth any empirical
argument, but relied instead on moral exhortations. But much more are on stake now. Sweden has taken in two million
immigrants since 1975 and now at least twenty percent of the population
is non-European. Crime rates are rising and whole municipalities are now
at least partly controlled by foreigners. The state spends billions
just to keep things running smoothly on the surface but schools,
hospitals and police are on their knees. The conservative government ran
on a pledge to lower taxes in the elections of 2006 and 2010. Now they
must indirectly raise taxes just to keep up with the failed immigration
policy. Some scholars have pointed out that one fourth of the public
budget goes straight into the immigration industry. Immigrants are using
hospitals, committing crimes at higher rates, live fully or partly on
welfare (half of them if not more), are unemployed, and are addicted to a
variety of other social programs.
A couple of years ago, the Swedish government lowered immigration
from Somalia. Somalis have a 90 percent unemployment rate and the crime
rate it off the charts. They are very difficult to assimilate or
“integrate” (to use the term favored by the Swedish establishment).
After heavy lobbying from the media and identity politics organizations,
has now decided to grant all Somalis asylum or residency. That means
that Sweden has a completely open border policy when it comes to
Somalia.
Many people are getting worried. Even the Prime Minister observed it
at the debate last night that “it all will just be fine.” Two or three
months ago some municipalities (financing of welfare is decentralized to
municipalities) stated that they were not able to take in more
refugees, especially not Somalis. They cannot afford it without saying
to the voters in the upcoming election in 2014 that they have to cut
down libraries, swimming pools, school teachers and municipal government
workers. The State sent some money – but it will not be enough.
Financial issues related to the costs of immigration are on the minds of
the elites and the people. The municipality of Borlänge noted in a
policy document that at least 50 percent of adult Somalis are
illiterate. They also concluded that most of the Somalis in Borlänge
will never enter the workforce. Nevertheless, these and many more
municipalities will continue to take all these people.
Because of the
burden of immigration the more well-off municipalities use every way
possible not take any responsibility for these immigrants. The
conservatives refuse to change the law to force them to – why? They
would quickly lose all support. Now, the socialists who run the
municipalities are buying up castles (not a joke), large estates (not a
joke) in order to remake them into apartments for immigrants. They also
buy large private homes in well-off communities for large immigrant
families to live there rent free.
The Swedish elites are afraid. The mainstream media have made it
impossible to put comments under online articles. They use all their
powers and there a lot of propaganda for multiculturalism and free
immigration. The largest media companies are also lobbying heavily for
abolishing civil rights.
But something is happening pretty rapidly now. The middle class are
waking up. You see it at the University and at private and public
institutions. You notice it in your family and among your friends. There
are actually normal people who are quite critical of current
immigration policy. Before it was the working class that first protested
immigration and multiculturalism. Now it has become more common among
the middle class.
What I have also seen is that people working for the
government are worried. Before it has been social workers, nurses,
teachers, police and doctors — people on the frontline that have seen
all the mess. Now, even the statisticians, investigators, public
officers, clerks and other administrators see what is going on. People
in the private sector are also wondering what is going on just by
looking out the window.
Stockholm, Oslo and Helsinki are now infested by gypsy beggars from
Romania and Bulgaria. You see Africans taking over the drug trade,
exploiting White misery. You see Yugoslavian, Russian, Albanian and
Syrian Mafia control restaurants. You see Muslim fundamentalism taking
place right on the streets of Stockholm, Oslo and Helsinki, at currency
exchange offices and small banks. You see organized crime on the street
and the police do nothing. In the upcoming election, the Green Party
will run on a platform of lower funding for police. They are the third
largest party in Sweden and are rising.
Currently part of the elites has tried to direct public anger on
Muslims. This neo-conservative tactic has been reasonably successful. A
couple of years ago a lot of nationalists in Europe seem to have taken
it to heart and pushed for support for Israel and American intervention.
This has been the case for the Swedish Democrats – where two Jewish
brothers together with a couple of Christian Zionists have pushed the
discourse into hating Muslims because of their religion. The terrorist
act of Anders Breivik changed things; it is not as easy anymore to be
Islamophobic. The elites have also discovered that they will gain little
support for it. Sweden had a version of EDL, but it never grew beyond a
few members. There is a new star on the Swedish Internet scene. A couple of years
ago, Widar Nord, a former IT consultant, established his own online
paper. He came from the libertarian camp but was quite critical of
typical libertarian attitudes on immigration policy, their pro-Israeli
views, and their lack of nationalism. His idea was to present an
anti-establishment nationalist, paleo-libertarian and paleo-conservative
fast-paced news site. Until his arrival on the scene, most of the
anti-establishment opinion came from Politically Incorrect, a site close
to the Swedish Democrats. It was strictly a counter-Jihad blog. Later
it turned into Avpixlat. Both Avpixlat and Politically Incorrect are
quite similar to the American Jihad Watch blog run by Robert Spencer. Widar named his site Fria Tider(Free
Times). It quickly became a success, rising to among the 200–300 most
visited sites in Sweden. Because of not following the Counter-Jihad
ideology it was pushed out – though it continued to grow. Now it is the
56th most popular site in Sweden (approximately as popular as Avpixlat
and the 9th largest newspaper in Sweden on the Internet). Fria Tider is successful because 1) They publish fast pace news.
2) They report what the MSM does not report, especially on the costs of multiculturalism. For example, this article deals with claims of sexual harassment of Swedish girls by immigrant youth. There are many articles on immigrant crime.
3) They post articles from famous paleo-conservatives, libertarians, and classical Marxists. Paul Gottfried has appeared there.
4) They are critical of Israel and the establishment;
5) They publish their own material. Just an hour ago they published an article about 9/11 and its connection to Israel;
6) They write about culture, economics, society, technology and many other things. This is done with a quite low budget and freelance writers that do
much for free or for a very low fee. These guys have no problems writing
about race, traditionalism and many other subjects that are taboo. The
difference between Fria Tider and “White nationalist”, “traditionalist” or “Counter-Jihad” sites is that Fria Tider
does not “work” for anything. They have no explicit political agenda
other than to publish free news from alternative perspectives. This
explains also how difficult it will be for the establishments to push
Fria Tider down. Media and anti-racist organizations have tried to do
so, but have poured most of their energy into attacking Avpixlat because
of its connection to the Swedish Democrats. A couple of weeks ago – The nationalists took control over the Swedish Democratic Youth – so things are changing here.
Elite Ideologies—Flexible in the Face of Multiculturalism: Immigration at all Costs
It is very true that libertarianism, liberalism and Marxism focus on
materialism, but it’s also very true to point out that these ideologies
were created in another time. These ideologies were exclusively for
Whites in a White and Christian context. These discourses sometimes
included Jews, but seldom non-White races. In fact, mainstream social-democracy in Europe was more similar to
National Socialism in Germany then this “post-Marxism” we see today.
Before the 1930s in United States, ideologies like libertarianism and
liberalism were often pro-White. The idea of ethnic, cultural, racial
and religious conservatism was often embedded in these radical liberal,
libertarian or Marxist ideologies. In the Third World we still see
ethnic or racial versions of Marxism. Often libertarianism, liberalism and Marxism were exported to the
Third World, but that was rather a way for the first and second world to
control different civilizations – not to create a paradise. It was
after WWII that these old ideologies took a turn toward open borders and
criticism of White culture and Christianity.
Libertarianism, Liberalism and Marxism are today just shells and are
disconnected from their roots. What we see today is something we should
call post-Marxism, post-liberalism or post-libertarianism. Let me give
you some examples of how their arguments are used: 1) Post-liberals use liberal rhetoric and arguments, but their agenda
is different from that of the old liberals. Post-liberals claim that
White people do not exist when Whites claim emancipation and nationhood.
In another context, Whites do exist for the post-liberals but and are
responsible for oppression and racism. They also claim that Whites
should not talk in terms of “We vs. them” because such thinking is
racist, sexist and “fascist.” This argument is taken from French
post-modernism and the Frankfurt school. But this is only the case when
Whites criticize non-White behavior. When the opposite is done by
minorities or the post-liberals, the dichotomy “we vs. them” is no
longer immoral. 2) Post-libertarians claims that they are only for individual rights.
But when it comes to Israel, they suddenly are all for ethnic
nationalism. When it comes to illiberal Jewish practices like
circumcision and Kosher slaughter, libertarians are supportive. In such
contexts post-libertarians have no problem accepting a libertarianism
that is connected to communitarian philosophy. The right to property is
one of the key notions in libertarianism but when it stands between free
immigration and people’s property (e.g., higher taxes to support public
goods for immigrants), they claim they are rather for free immigration.
In fact, many libertarians would rather live in a socialist society
then have national borders. When Christians want to baptize their
children, these atheist libertarians call it an act of religious
cruelty. To cut body parts of Jewish children is “okay” but to flush a
few drops of blessed water on an infant’s head is “pushing religion on
individuals.”
3) Look at the post-Marxists way for arguing. They reason the same
way. They rather live in a libertarian or a liberal state then changing
the immigration policy or outlaw Jewish (and Muslim) practices. Many
post-Marxists go even further and are all okay with the most barbaric
cultural practices that minorities do – just to push for “tolerance for
diversity”. Now, many of the most extreme post-Marxists are
marginalized. They are so because they sometimes push Israel in a corner
and the establishment does not like that.
These three political elitist groups have other agendas alongside
their open border and multicultural ideology. Often it boils downs to
LGBT rights, abortion, polygamy and feminism. This is an “old” agenda
that was and still is used as a tool to deconstruct Western culture and
to socialize Whites in weakness, self-deception and self-hate. What we
can see now is a shift. Feminism is now dominated by post-colonialist
feminism critique instead of Western feminism. Years ago, the veil was
looked at as oppression. Today’s feminists have little problem with
Muslim conservative faith, even if it from a Western view it is quite
the opposite to what these feminists fought to push on White women.
Today, liberal and socialist feminists are still aiming their message at
White women but not on non-White women. The reason is quite obvious. If
Western feminism was applied and non-White women were forced to
assimilate into this Western feminism, there would be a clash with the
“Other” and maybe even lowering the immigration numbers. Muslims, Africans, Arabs and people from the Third World are not keen
on abortion, feminism and LGBT-rights. Nevertheless, multicultural
elites have said and continue to say “We are all the same and all people
share the same fundamental norms.”
They project their own ideas on the rest of the world. When you read the
academic literature you quite clearly understand that this is a
political tactic rather than anything else. In fact, they all realize
that people are different but that if they would “talk about the
differences” that would lead to racism, so we must not talk about it. It
is quite extra-ordinary that they remain in the mode of critiquing the
bourgeois power structure but use this tactic to further their political
goals. Still, there is a reality out there and all these ethnic
minority groups are not very keen on liberalism, Marxism and
Libertarianism. These minorities are also not very keen on the
multicultural utopias they are presented.
Some of these protected groups or ideals need to be dropped to ensure
open borders. The first protected group that the elites drop is
children. If some of the ethnic minorities want to keep children from
school, beat them or practice barbaric customs on them (e.g., female
genital mutilation), the multicultural elites are perfectly happy with
it. This is seen quite clearly in Europe where children’s rights have
been undermined so that the Muslim, Jewish and African communities do
not feel offended and leave. In the circumcision debate in Germany,
Jewish identity organizations said quite clearly that if Europe wants to
continue to be multicultural and not chase away minorities, this ban on
circumcision need to be rescinded.
Of course, politicians were afraid and obeyed the pressure groups. It
also shows us that politicians care more for foreign norms then
northern European norms.
Soon, these protected groups will have more
political power and not be so dependent on terrified politicians of
European descent to promote multiculturalism.
Interesting enough, the elites do not change any laws to satisfy
ethnic minority groups in Europe. Just as in the United States when
dealing with illegal aliens, European states instead undermine existing
laws by refusing to enforce them.
well-off natives can afford to move to safe, pleasant
white enclaves, where they may send their children to school among white
native speakers of Norwegian. Less affluent citizens are not so
fortunate, however, and are forced to endure the humiliation and
degradation of the Multicultural behavioral sink in which their
political masters have consigned them to live.
The costs for the less fortunate are dramatic. The article is
important because it shows how aggressive the Muslim immigrants are,
especially against the native boys. This is a Darwinian dominance
struggle between males.
At TOO we often emphasize the individualism of Western societies and
the collectivism of pretty much the rest of the world. This dichotomy
is much on display here: Muslims have large social networks based on
kinship and they are aggressive in groups, whereas they are cowardly
when alone.The result is a very clear dominance hierarchy, with the
natives at the bottom and groups of Muslims at the top. One of the
informants, Andreas, says
“There is a hierarchy, where ethnic Norwegian boys are on
the bottom rung on the ladder. They will be targeted unless they accede
to their rules, if they don’t they become Norwegian immigrants. If a
Norwegian boy gets into trouble, odds are that he has a small family and
a tiny social network. Unlike a Pakistani or Somali boy, he doesn’t
have a clan of brothers and cousins and uncles who come rushing to his
aid in the event of a conflict. Most of the time the only thing he has
is a single parent.”
An astute commenter on the article writes: “That atomisation and
isolation celebrated as ultra-individualism and the contempt for
association or commonweal, branded as socialist conspiracy in progressive conservative political dogma, is inhibiting the formation of a mass European opposition particularly at street level.”
The article makes clear that not only are the Norwegians forced to
encounter hostile gangs of Muslims without social support from friends
and relatives, they get no support from the schools (which accommodate
Muslim culture and excuse Muslim aggression as resulting from war in
their native countries) or the media (which refuses to publish accounts
of the reality of life on the streets). (It should also be noted that
the justice system fails native Norwegians by giving out lenient punishment and failing to invest resources against the epidemic of Muslim men raping Norwegian women).
So the Norwegians are completely isolated. The Muslims exist in large
kinship networks that aid each other in times of need. The genius of
Western societies is that individualism allows the construction of civil
societies where kinship ties are much less important. This is why
Syria and Iraq cannot construct civil societies but are riven by
kinship groups that are in constant conflict.
Western societies have uniquely been high-trust societies, a point made, e.g., by Francis Fukuyama and a basic corollary of the psychology of Western individualism (see here,
p. 27ff). The problem is that we think that everyone is “just like
us”—willing and able to set up individualist societies with democratic
and republican institutions. As Ian Morris writes in his Why the West Rules—For Now, people are pretty much the same the world over (see Brenton Sanderson’s review).
We want to believe this so badly that it was easy to pull off the big
lie. It’s the foundational lie of multi-culturalism. (see “The Iraq Nightmare”)
But collectivism is very effective in competition against
individualists within a society. This is doubtless the main reason for
the success of Judaism as a collectivist culture in relatively atomized
Western societies: Ethnic networking by Jews is very effective in the intellectual world (the theme of The Culture of Critique) and all the other centers of power throughout the West.
Highly disciplined, cooperative groups are able to
outcompete individualist strategies. Indeed, an important thread in the
following chapters is that Jewish intellectuals have formed highly
cohesive groups whose influence to a great extent derives from the
solidarity and cohesiveness of the group. Intellectual activity is like
any other human endeavor: Cohesive groups outcompete individualist
strategies. (CofC, Chapter 1, p.5)
The result is that as the collectivists become dominant, many of the
individualists accept their subordination and begin to look up to the
collectivists, just as so many Whites throughout the West admire Jews as
a dominant group. As noted in The Culture of Critique:
Once Jews had attained intellectual predominance, it is
not surprising that gentiles would be attracted to Jewish intellectuals
as members of a socially dominant and prestigious group and as
dispensers of valued resources. Such a perspective fits well with an
evolutionary perspective on group dynamics: Gentiles negotiating the
intellectual status hierarchy would be attracted to the characteristics
of the most dominant members of the hierarchy, especially if they viewed
the hierarchy as permeable. Writer William Barrett, a gentile editor of
Partisan Review, describes his “awe and admiration” of the New
York Intellectuals (a group of predominantly Jewish intellectuals
discussed in Chapter 6) early in his career. “They were beings invested
in my eyes with a strange and mysterious glamour” (in Cooney 1986, 227).
(previous link, p. 3)
A similar phenomenon can be seen with Andreas when he encounters Muslim groups:
He lowers his gaze, he wants to be like them, talk like
them, he alters his language, limits his vocabulary, makes deliberate
spelling mistakes — ‘an school’, kebab-Norwegian, buys a soft gun, wants
to be like the older, tougher, cool Pakistani guys that have cars and
money and no job, why not become a Muslim, become a brother? He wants to be like them, but he doesn’t become like them, something inside him is resisting. Fragments: the bad grades in the Norwegian classes, the bad friends,
Islam, he notices how they view women, as an object, how they react when
he tries to discuss Islam with them, how they talk about respect, but
don’t show any respect, how they refer to Norwegians as f***ing
Norwegians, whitey, potato; something inside him resists. He withdraws. They notice that he withdraws. Then it starts.
Others respond to the dominance of the Muslims with fear.
“They are afraid. They don’t dare to speak out. You
should have a look at the number of principals that have come and gone
at Vestliveien school in recent years, and ask them why they left. They
don’t have control, but they do everything to accommodate the Muslim
students. In home economics classes everybody has to prepare halal meat.
Immigrants do not have to attend ‘NyNorsk’ classes [literally
New-Norwegian, which is a different dialect and a different way to write
Norwegian — there are two forms of written Norwegian]. I have to attend
these classes. The Muslim girls do not have to attend the physical
activity classes; because of course they cannot undress in front of
other girls. We have to adapt to their culture. They don’t have to adapt
to ours.”
Others stand up to this onslaught, but the result is the same:
[Marius] doesn’t lower his head. He refuses to take any
crap. He answers back. He’s loudmouthed. He is who he is. It does not
matter. But that’s not why they target him. It is an autumn evening in
seventh grade. He is playing tennis. When he leaves the court to collect
some tennis balls they appear. They are seven or eight Somalis. The
beat the crap out of him, he has to get new teeth put in. Marius doesn’t slow down. He calls a Roma girl a gypsy, something
that isn’t appreciated. When her brothers and cousins come for him, he
hides in the principal’s office.
And girls naturally look up to socially dominant males:
“There is one thing that annoys the hell out of me. They
can start chasing Norwegian girls, but we cannot go after theirs. It’s
something you learn early on. You just don’t go after a Pakistani girl,
but Norwegian girls are available to immigrant boys. Norwegian girls
prefer them. I don’t know why. I guess it must be that brown skin. That
they are tough, that they have money despite not having jobs. They don’t
see that they fight in packs, that they are cowards. I asked my best
female friend if we could get romantically involved, and she told me
that I have the right personality, but the problem was that I’m
Norwegian. She wants to become involved with a foreigner.”
The domination of native Norwegian women by the Muslim men is the
ultimate evolutionary disaster for Norwegian men.
The domination of native Norwegian women by the Muslim men is the
ultimate evolutionary disaster for Norwegian men. (And, as noted in
Andreus’s comment above, Muslims view women as objects, whereas in the
West the position of women has always been much higher—a result of monogamy putting a damper on sexual competition among males.)
This sexual dominance is played out in little ways. When journalists
accompany Andreas to the subway station, they encounter two Muslims who
stare at them. “We lower our gaze first.” Another example: A group of
Muslims yells, “‘Hey Marius have you got yourself a girlfriend,’ and
it’s not the words that are threatening, but the way they are being
uttered, do you understand, how they look at me and my girlfriend who
starts to cry, do you understand?”
Girls don’t want to be with boys who are made fun of by other males. Immigration and multiculturalism are a disaster for the West.
This is a recent talk which was intended as a general overview and designed to appeal to the unconverted.
My background is in evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary
psychologists study how the human mind has been shaped by the needs of
survival and reproduction over long expanses of evolutionary time. When
we look at how the human mind actually evolved, there are troubling
implications for multiculturalism.
Social Identity Processes
There are several systems that are relevant for how people respond to
others from different groups, but I think the most important one stems
from social identity theory. An early form of social identity theory was
stated by 19th-century anthropologist William Graham Sumner, who concluded:
Loyalty to the group, sacrifice for it, hatred and
contempt for outsiders, brotherhood within, warlikeness without—all grow
together, common products of the same situation. It is sanctified by
connection with religion. Men of an others-group are outsiders with
whose ancestors the ancestors of the we-group waged war. . . . Each
group nourishes its own pride and vanity, boasts itself superior, exalts
its own divinities, and looks with contempt on outsiders. Each group
thinks its own folkways the only right ones, and if it observes that
other groups have other folkways, these excite its scorn.
This essentially states that for humans, identifying as a member of
an ingroup is a source of conflict with other groups. We are all aware
that around the world there are many countries that are engulfed in
conflict stemming from religious and ethnic differences—from different
social identities. Right now the civil war in Syria is a good example,
pitting Sunnis against Shiites, and within these larger groupings there
are particular ethnic groups, such as Alewites, Arabs, Kurds, Druze, and
Assyrians. Azerbaijan is no stranger to ethnic conflict, as in the war
with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh.
In Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan, American military interventions were
justified to the American people and to the world in moral terms — as
promoting democracy and human rights. However, the results have done
nothing to reduce the ethnic and religious divisions within these
societies, and there is no end in sight for armed conflict and
terrorism. After 10 years of occupation by American forces, we read
about daily bombings in Iraq in which dozens of people die. Nevertheless, the ideology that multiculturalism is a superior form
of social organization is dominant among American elites and throughout
the West with the result that these societies are actively seeking to
have increasing ethnic diversity. Those of us who oppose this policy are
labeled as “racists” and “haters,” but the belief that increasing
diversity is linked to greater conflict is well established by
scientific research.
There has been a substantial amount of psychological research related
to groups. A study by Sherif et al. is classic. They found that when
randomly chosen groups of boys engaged in between-group competition,
group membership became an important aspect of personal identity. The
groups developed negative stereotypes of each other and were transformed
into groups of “wicked, disturbed, and vicious” children. Remember, these groups were randomly chosen and therefore much less
emotionally compelling than naturally occurring ethnic or religious
groups where people are born into them and have a long history of being
socialized within the group. It’s clear from this study that fear and
dislike of outgroups are easily developed.
Social identity research shows that people are highly prone to
identifying themselves with groups. There is a tendency to conceptualize
both ingroups and especially outgroups as more homogeneous than they
really are. That is, we ignore differences among outgroup members and we
exaggerate their negative qualities. The stereotypic behavior and
attitudes of the ingroup are positively valued, while outgroup behavior
and attitudes are negatively valued. The result of these categorization processes is discrimination in
favor of the ingroup; beliefs in the superiority of the ingroup and
inferiority of the outgroup; and positive emotional preference for the
ingroup and negative feelings directed toward the outgroup. We see these
things even in randomly constructed groups, but these tendencies toward
ingroup cohesiveness and devaluation of the outgroup are exacerbated by
real conflicts of interest between naturally occurring groups.
These studies attest to the power of “groupness” in the human
mind—the tendency for even the most randomly constructed groups to
elicit discrimination against outgroups. The implication is that ethnic-
and religious-based groups, which are not at all randomly constructed,
have much stronger tendencies toward negative attitudes toward
outgroups. As an evolutionary psychologist, I have described several sources of
evidence that social identity processes are a universal feature of the
human mind. Social identity processes also are exacerbated in times of resource
competition or other perceived sources of threat. This has grave
implications for ethnically and religiously divided societies. Relations
between groups may be fine when economic prospects are good for
everyone, but in times of crisis there is competition between groups for
resources. Anthropological research on pre-state societies has found
that “hard times” and expanding populations are often associated with
warfare. On the other hand, external threats tend to reduce internal
divisions and maximize perceptions of common interest among ingroup
members.
It is one thing to encourage multiculturalism in a society with a
large and stable ethnic majority. I am all for treating minorities
equitably and without discrimination. There is no question that legal
prohibitions and mass media messages can have the effect of blunting the
most extreme forms of intergroup conflict and hostility resulting from
social identity processes. However, it is quite another thing to encourage multiculturalism as
an ideology of mass immigration that will make the former majority into a
minority. Under these circumstances, the majority will be rightly
concerned about loss of sovereignty and fear of domination by other
groups. This bears emphasis. Throughout many parts of the world, particularly
in the Middle East, there are multiethnic societies. In many cases
these groups have lived together for hundreds of years, not always
harmoniously but far more commonly in relationships of dominance and
subordination. In the contemporary world, we see some of the governments
of such societies loudly proclaiming their commitment to
multiculturalism and their historical diversity. For example, Azerbaijan
speaks proudly of its commitment to peaceful tolerance of non-Azeri
ethnic groups. But no Azeri would advocate an immigration policy that
would admit other peoples so that the Azeri majority would become a
minority.
Recently, Azerbaijan has announced that it will pursue any and
all means to regain the Nagorno-Karabakh region taken by Armenia 20
years ago. One million Azerbaijanis left the area rather than be ruled
by the Armenians. For their part, the Armenians have destroyed
historical monuments and other cultural remnants of the Azeri presence
in the area. These Azeris have implicitly rejected a multicultural
solution in which they would be a majority dominated by an Armenian
minority—for good reason.
Historically, there are many such multicultural situations that have
led to one ethnic group dominating others. It is certainly
understandable that ethnic groups would fear being dominated by other
groups which would result if there were a change in the ethnic status
quo. In many parts of the world, there are bitter memories and a long
history where one group dominated another. Right now Syria is dominated
by a Shiite Alawite minority that was persecuted for centuries by a
Sunni majority. This creates an unstable situation where
ethnic/religious conflict is likely to emerge, with horrific
consequences for the side that loses.
Given this situation, no one should be surprised that there is a
civil war raging in Syria or that the Alewites will fight to the end to
hang onto power because they know the consequences of becoming an ethnic
minority dominated by other ethno-religious groups that have already
announced their hatred for them. Indeed, it has been widely reported
that a slogan among the rebels
is “Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the grave.” In the background of
such conflicts looms the possibility of expulsion and genocide.
The West Opts for the Multiculturalism of Displacement of Traditional People and Culture
Despite the long history of ethnic and religious conflict between
groups, the West has embarked on a path of officially promoting a new
type of multiculturalism resulting from high levels of immigration of
ethnic groups from around the world. Population projections in many
Western countries, including the United States, show that as a direct
result of these policies, the traditional peoples of these areas will be
minorities in societies dominated by their ancestors, in the case of
Europe, for thousands of years. Such a situation is unprecedented in
human history—the voluntary ceding of ethnic and cultural dominance to
other groups, many with historical hatreds against them. This revolution has been a top-down revolution: the impetus for the
shift toward displacement-level immigration and for multiculturalism has
come from hostile elites
centered in the media, academia, and politics. This has been true
throughout the West. For example, in America polls of European-derived
peoples, who formed approximately 90% of the population 50 years ago,
have consistently opposed non-White immigration. The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965which
opened the door to non-European immigration, was specifically
advertised as having no effect on the ethnic balance of the country.
However, immigration policy was formulated by political elites and
strongly favored by the media, non-White ethnic lobbies, the academic
world, and some business interests. Individuals who oppose these
policies are labeled “racists” and “extremists” and they are depicted as
psychiatrically impaired and morally depraved.
Those who oppose these policies are also in danger of losing their
jobs or even going to prison. Throughout the West, there are strong
sanctions against people who violate the norms of “political
correctness.” People who publicly disagree with multiculturalism and
displacement-level immigration or criticize non-White ethnic groups or
call attention to the power of certain ethnic groups have lost their
jobs or had major setbacks in their careers. In many Western countries
but not the United States, there are laws against publicly expressing
such attitudes, resulting in fines or prison sentences for those who
violate these norms. The sanctions against violating the norms of political correctness
have resulted in a gap between people’s explicit, conscious attitudes on
race and their implicit, unconscious attitudes—implicit Whiteness.
These implicit attitudes may be unconscious, but they do affect
behavior. Whites in America are coalescing into groups and activities
with other White people, but these actions are not explicitly labeled as
White because to do so would violate the norms of political
correctness. In the face of overwhelming sanctions on White racial
identity in the post-World War II Western world, Whites have adopted a
variety of implicitly White identities which serve as the basis of White
association and community. All of these identities exist under the
radar of the political correctness enforced by elites in academia,
politics, and the media.
There are quite a few such implicitly White identities in America,
including Tea Party Republican political affiliation, NRA member, NASCAR
racing enthusiast, evangelical Christian, and country music fan. Each
of these identities allow White people to associate with other Whites
and even to form a White political base without any explicit
acknowledgement that race plays a role. If asked about their motivation
for being part of these implicit White communities, Whites would say
that it has nothing to do with race—that they are simply attracted to
neighborhoods with better schools or to the Republican political
ideology of small government.
Implicit White communities have become an increasingly important part
of the American landscape. An important implicit White community
results from residential segregation resulting from “White flight”—the
phenomenon where White people have moved away from neighborhoods as
Blacks or other groups moved in. As sociologist Kevin Kruse notes about
White flight, “at the dawn of the twenty-first century, America found
itself dominated by suburbs and those suburbs dominated by the politics
of White flight and urban secession.” Part of this phenomenon stems from Whites’ diminished willingness to
contribute to public goods, because the beneficiaries are
disproportionately non-White minorities. Race is never part of the
explicit rhetoric of White flight, which tends to be expressed as
opposition to the federal government, the welfare state, taxation, and
the desire for better schools, or even perceived moral issues like
abortion and homosexuality. But at the implicit level, the desire for
White communities and the aversion to contributing to public goods for
non-Whites are the overriding motivations. The recent US government
shutdown over the Affordable Care Act was widely perceived
as motivated by Whites concerned that poor non-Whites would
disproportionately benefit from the law, while it would increase taxes
on Whites.
White flight is part of the fragmented future that lies in store for
the U.S. and other Western countries with high levels of non-European
immigration. It is a well-established finding that the more ethnically
mixed a population becomes, the greater is its resistance to
redistributive policies, as demonstrated by Frank Salter
and others. For example, a study of donations to the United Way of
America charity found that White Americans give less when their
communities are more than 10 per cent non-White. Sociologist Robert D.
Putnam has showed that the greater the racial diversity of a community,
the greater the loss of trust. People living in homogeneous areas like
New Hampshire or Montana are more involved with friends, the community,
and politics than people in more diverse areas.
An important trend resulting from multiculturalism is that Western societies are now becoming organized more on the basis of race.
In the past, political parties formed on the basis of class (e.g., in
the U.S., working class Whites tended to vote Democrat, while business
and professional classes tended toward the Republicans). Political
affiliation is now much more determined by racial identity. In the
United States, the Republican Party has become the party of White
Christians. In 2004 and 2006, White evangelical or born-again Christians
made up a quarter of the electorate, and 78 percent of them voted
Republican despite the fact that most were lower middle class.
The mirror image of this is that other ethnic groups are coalescing
into a non-White voting bloc centered in the Democratic Party to an even
greater extent than Whites are gravitating to the Republican Party.
In 2012, 80% of non-Whites voted Democrat and around 65% of the
European-descended Americans voting Republican. These patterns were
apparent in both sexes and all age categories, although less extreme
among White women and young Whites. This means that very large numbers
of working class and middle class Whites are voting Republican even
though the Republican Party has historically been the party of the
business and professional classes and has done nothing for its White
working class voters of recent decades. In general, the percentage of
Whites voting Republican has increased by 1.5% every 4-year election cycle.
These increases have come even as the economic status of Whites has
deteriorated. These Whites are not voting Republican for economic
reasons. Indeed, the policies pursued by elites in the Republican Party
are often opposed to their economic interests. Rather, they vote this
way because of their implicit racial identity. They do not consider
themselves part of the “rainbow coalition” that has formed in the
Democratic Party.
Politics has become racialized in other Western countries as well as a
result of immigration, where parties of the left have favored
immigration, at least partly because immigrants vote for them. That is,
racial and cultural identity become more important for voting behavior,
with the result that political parties become increasingly identified
along racial lines.
In France, 93% of Muslim immigrants voted for the Socialist Party,
providing the difference in the recent election that brought François
Hollande to power. In the U.K., immigrants tend to vote for the Labour
Party, and the Labour Party was responsible for a surge in immigration
when Tony Blair was Prime Minister. Research
into voting patterns conducted for the Electoral Commission after the
2005 general election found that 80 per cent of Caribbean and African
voters had voted Labour, while only about 3 per cent had voted
Conservative and roughly 8 per cent for the Liberal Democrats. The Asian
vote was split about 50 per cent for Labour, 10 per cent
Conservatives and 15 per cent Liberal Democrats. As one commenter noted, “Labour’s great gift to the British people is the poisonous legacy of tribal politics.”
These enormous shifts in the political structure were consciously
pursued by elites but not discussed publicly because they were aware
that working class White voters would reject them.
The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were
partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically
change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, according to
Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David
Blunkett.
He said Labour’s relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to
“open up the UK to mass migration” but that ministers were nervous and
reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its
“core working class vote”. … “But ministers wouldn’t talk about it. In
part they probably realised the conservatism of their core voters: while
ministers might have been passionately in favour of a more diverse
society, it wasn’t necessarily a debate they wanted to have in working
men’s clubs in Sheffield or Sunderland.” (see here)
Notice here that the Labour Party did not publicly announce their
motives because they did not want to offend their White working class
voters. Indeed, “Even the Labour government’s own survey last February
showed that 77 per cent of the public wanted immigration reduced,
including 54 per cent of the ethnic communities, while 50 per cent of
the public wanted it reduced ‘by a lot’.”
As throughout the West,
immigration and multiculturalism are top-down phenomena that are opposed
by the great majority of native Whites. As a result, deception and lack
of information have been critical to the success of these policies. In
addition, there has been constant propaganda from the media and laws
that penalize ideas and behavior in opposition to immigration and
multiculturalism. Here is another example of the gap between elites and the rest of society, David Goodhart, a liberal journalist, critiquing massive immigration into the UK:
There has been a huge gap between our ruling elite’s
views and those of ordinary people on the street. This was brought home
to me when dining at an Oxford college and the eminent person next to
me, a very senior civil servant, said: ‘When I was at the Treasury, I
argued for the most open door possible to immigration [because] I saw it
as my job to maximise global welfare not national welfare.’ I was even
more surprised when the notion was endorsed by another guest, one of the
most powerful television executives in the country. He, too, felt
global welfare was paramount and that he had a greater obligation to
someone in Burundi than to someone in Birmingham. … [The political
class] failed to control the inflow more overtly in the interests of
existing citizens.
Such high-mindedness is an attempt to fit into a moral community as
defined by their peers among the elites of British society. Standing up
for the interests of the native British would have made him a moral
pariah, with likely effects on his career prospects. An evolutionist can
only marvel at the completely unhinged altruism on display here,
assuming the speakers are native White Brits. Countries whose policies
ignore the good of their own people are surely headed for disaster. Such
altruism is nothing but a recipe for evolutionary extinction.
The Inculcation of Guilt among Whites
I have noted that multiculturalism and the ideology of massive
non-White immigration are well-entrenched in the media. One aspect of
this is that the media produce a drumbeat of messages that encourage
Whites to feel guilt about their past and for opposing immigration and
multiculturalism. The media is replete with depictions of Whites as
inflicting harm on non-Whites historically and in the contemporary
world. The history of slavery and segregation of African Americans is a
particular focus of the media. Another focus is the persecution of Jews
during World War II. Even though America did not perpetrate the
Holocaust, there is the implication that National Socialism was a
product of Western civilization, so that Western civilization itself has
no moral legitimacy and therefore cannot be defended. The result has been that White Americans have been made to feel guilt
about their culture. Any objection to non-White immigration and the
moral superiority of multiculturalism is then regarded as morally
debased—as supremely wicked.
As a result, opposition to these trends has
been muted and almost non-existent in the mainstream media and among
mainstream politicians and academics. Not only are anti-White messages prestigious, they are also badges of
moral rectitude. Displacement-level non-White immigration has become a
moral imperative. To dissent from such policies is to place oneself
outside the moral universe of the contemporary West.
Conclusion
Western societies have embarked on an entirely novel program of
combating the interests and attitudes of the majorities of their native
populations. This has been accomplished by constant propaganda
inculcating guilt in those who diverge from the elite consensus and by
penalties such as job loss and even prison for those who disagree
publicly. At the same time, native White populations are coalescing in
organizations that are implicitly White, so that Western societies are
becoming increasingly racialized.
My view is that in the long run these race-based coalitions are
unstable and that there will be high levels of conflict in these
societies, with unpredictable consequences. The history of ethnic and
racial conflict has often been bloody, and the history of projects
rationalized with a high level of moral idealism, such as the present
policies of immigration and multiculturalism, have quite often led to
disaster for peoples not having power. This is surely the lesson of
communism—rationalized with high moral idealism, but resulting in the
murders of tens of millions of people.
Deafeningly. That’s how liberals would have reacted if the victims in Rotherham
had been Pakistani, the rapists White and the cover-up organized by the
Conservative party and its allies in the right-wing media. If the
scandal had been like that, the Guardian would have boiled with
righteous wrath and indignation: “The horror of it. At least 1,400
victims subject to sixteen years of rape, torture and degradation. These
right-wing officials and journalists should be put on trial for their
active, wilful complicity in these racist atrocities. Then we should
lock them up and throw away the key.”
I think it would have gone something like that. But alas for
liberals, it wasn’t evil right-ringers who were complicit in the horrors
of Rotherham: it was golden-hearted liberals. Which political party
gave rape-gangs the go-ahead year after year? Not the Conservatives or
the British National Party, but feminist Labour, champions of the poor
and vulnerable. Which newspaper dictated the multi-culti, rape-friendly
politics of left-wing councillors and social workers in Rotherham? Not
the Daily Mail or the Times, but the feminist Guardian, that staunch opponent of sex-crimes and patriarchal oppression. And you don’t have to take my word about the Guardian’s role in more than a decade of rapes, beatings and psychological torture:
Labour MPs: Left ignored sex abuse
A culture of Left-wing political correctness led politicians and
officials to ignore the plight of young girls who were being sexually
abused by Asian men, Labour figures have warned. Ann Cryer, an MP from
1997 until 2010, told The Sunday Telegraph how she had feared
being called “racist” when, in 2002, she exposed a sex-abuse scandal
involving Pakistani men in her constituency of Keighley, West Yorkshire.
A “politically correct Left just saw it as racism”, she said. At the same time, Simon Danczuk,
the Labour MP for Rochdale, revealed that even now some of his
colleagues disapproved of his efforts to uncover child abuse, because
some were “obsessing about multiculturalism”. It follows the exposure
last week of the scale of child sexual abuse in Rotherham. An inquiry
estimated that at least 1,400 girls as young as 11 were assaulted and
raped by gangs of Asian men over a period of 16 years. Some had guns
pointed at them or were doused in petrol and threatened with being set
alight. Mrs Cryer recalled how there was a politically correct Left that
saw her fight as racism. “At the time I was dealing with this, 2002-04,
political correctness was playing a big part. The Guardian at that time hardly mentioned these things… because it was so politically correct.” (Labour MPs: Left ignored sex abuse, The Daily Telegraph, 30th Aug 2014)
Deluded though they still are about mass immigration, Ann Cryer and
Simon Danczuk have qualities unknown to most liberals: courage, honesty
and integrity. Those are certainly not words that can be applied to the
disgraced MP Denis MacShane, a dedicated champion of “the Jewish community” who was jailed in December 2013
for expenses fraud. But MacShane too has pointed out which newspaper
created the “culture of denial” where gang-rape could flourish:
Rotherham: Sorry isn’t good enough. When will Britain learn to protect its children?
… Denis MacShane, who was Labour MP for Rotherham at the time, also
says he didn’t know. Can it be the case that he was blinkered to the
plight of his desperate constituents: parents fighting to get the
authorities to do something about the abuse happening to their
daughters? Could the disconnect between him and the community he
represented have been so great? Was he so far removed from the business
of the council that he didn’t know about the presentations to
councillors on child sexual exploitation as long ago as 2004? His plea
that his “liberal leftie” Guardian-reading tendencies prevented
him from digging deeper for fear of upsetting cultural sensitivities
smacks of a post-hoc justification of his abject failure to do anything:
an excuse hardly befitting a parliamentarian of 18 years. If he was so
unable or unwilling to exercise proper scrutiny and inquiry in his
constituency (that being his job, after all) then he should have
resigned long before he was forced to – in 2012 – when he was charged,
and later convicted, of fraud while serving as an MP. Politics failed
the young children of Rotherham too. (Rotherham: Sorry isn’t good enough. When will Britain learn to protect its children?, The Guardian, 31st August 2014)
Yes, that Guardian editorial has a long list of guilty
parties: “the police, social services and the state failed the children;
so, too, did local councillors.” Conspicuous by their absence are some
folk much closer to home: editors and journalists at the Guardian (and its Sunday version the Observer). The Guardian cares so deeply about victims and the vulnerable that its website has special sections devoted to women, children, child protection, rape and domestic violence. But it was the right-wing Times
“whose estimable reporting sparked the inquiry” into what was happening
in Rotherham. It seems that pious posturing isn’t enough to protect the
vulnerable. But the Guardian isn’t going to break the habit of a lifetime just yet:
The Guardian view on the Rotherham child abuse
scandal: no excuse. Nothing should stand in the way of protecting the
vulnerable. Those who fail should take responsibility
Shaun Wright, Labour’s South Yorkshire police and crime commissioner,
who was Rotherham’s cabinet member for children and young people’s
services from 2005 until 2010, is refusing to resign.
He apologises unreservedly for the grotesque abuse that 1,400 children
or more may have endured on his watch, but he says the scale of the
abuse has come as a surprise to him. … His lack of leadership, his
reluctance to ask difficult questions or to intervene proactively,
allowed the exploitation itemised in Professor Alexis Jay’s grim report
on Tuesday to grow from what an earlier investigator called gang abuse
for personal gratification into “financial and career opportunities” for
young, mainly Asian, men. His failure to take responsibility now, in
the face of the evidence, suggests a dangerous reluctance to address
what went so damagingly wrong for so many vulnerable young women. Rotherham is not alone in experiencing colossal institutional failure
in child protection. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,
and a pattern of abuse that has now resulted in convictions in towns
from Torbay to Rochdale
is very likely to be happening in other places not yet identified. …
Then there was a misguided reluctance to consider whether there was an
issue of race involved. Finally, they lacked any kind of institutional
data-sharing that might have allowed police, schools, hospitals and
social workers to understand what was happening. The question of ethnicity is particularly contentious. Rotherham is a
very white, poor, working-class town with a growing but still small –
less than 10% – black and minority ethnic population of which less than a
third is Muslim. In last May’s local elections, Ukip won most votes and
became the official opposition on the council. A march by the English Defence League during the campaign drew 500 supporters. On Tuesday, one of the first on Twitter with a gloating tweet
was Nick Griffin of the BNP. In that context it is understandable that
the Labour council was sensitive to the reputation of its Muslim
community. But it led to a terrible misjudgment: the subordination of
the safeguarding of abused and exploited children – who were mainly, but
not only, white – to the protection of the standing of one particular
community. When the then Labour MP Ann Cryer, the anti-forced-marriage campaigner, began reporting accounts of young Pakistani-heritage men hanging about school gates in 2003, she was bitterly criticised. (The Guardian view on the Rotherham child abuse scandal: no excuse, The Guardian, 27th August 2014)
“Bitterly criticized” by whom? Guardian-readers, of course.
NASA should get in touch with the writer of that editorial: there’s
enough hot air and humbug there to send a six-man crew to Mars and back.
Let’s review the sorry list of failure: “lack of leadership… reluctance
to ask difficult questions or to intervene proactively … dangerous
reluctance to address what went so damagingly wrong for so many
vulnerable young women… colossal institutional failure in child
protection… misguided reluctance to consider whether there was an issue
of race involved… terrible misjudgment: the subordination of the
safeguarding of abused and exploited children to the protection of the
standing of one particular community…”
In short, what caused the horrors in Rotherham was the ideology of the Guardian,
as absorbed and applied by its dedicated readers in local government
and social services. That ideology postures about rape and male violence
while actually promoting them. The Guardian supports mass
immigration from violent and misogynistic Third World nations, then
conceals the consequences. It demonizes anyone who speaks the truth
about the numerous pathologies imported by Muslims and other non-Whites.
The Times wasn’t first with the news about Muslim rape-gangs in northern England: it was Nick Griffin, then the leader of the British National Party. And the Guardian wanted Griffin to go to jail for what he said.
If there are people who should be put on trial and imprisoned or
expelled from Britain for promoting crime on a massive scale, it isn’t
anyone in the British National Party and other nationalist
organizations. No, it’s the politicians and journalists who have
directly assisted a war of violence and rape waged by non-Whites against
the White British. Here are a few of the guilty men and women:
Friend of Rape #1: Keith Vaz
Keith Vaz is the greasy and sleazy Labour MP who chairs the Commons Home Affairs Committee. He is now set to grill Shaun Wright, the police and crime commissioner excoriated by the Guardian for his failures in Rotherham. But Vaz himself concealed the truth about Muslim sex-crimes and helped them to continue:
Keith Vaz says child sex ring case ‘not race issue’ Leading MP Keith Vaz has insisted the case of an Asian paedophile
gang that exploited dozens of vulnerable white teenagers is not a “race
issue”. Mr Vaz, chairman of the Commons home affairs committee, said the
“appalling” offences of the kind carried out by the gang needed to be
looked into but it was important not to “stigmatise a whole community”. He made the remarks after nine men from Rochdale were convicted for
their role in a child sex ring. Police and social workers have been
accused of failing to investigate the gang for fear of being perceived
as racist, allowing them to prey on up to 50 young white girls. Mr Vaz told [the BBC radio programme] Today the offences
committed by the gang were “absolutely appalling crimes”. But he added:
“Right at the start of this trial the BNP were outside demonstrating
saying that this was a race issue. I do not believe it is a race issue.”
He said his view was backed by the police and children’s experts. (Keith Vaz says child sex ring case ‘not race issue’, The Telegraph, 9th May 2012)
Friend of Rape #2: Sue Berelowitz
Vaz referred to “children’s experts.” Here is the most influential of them all:
Sex gangs report ‘will play down threat of Pakistani men targeting white girls’ An official inquiry into child sex gangs will fail to highlight the
targeting of white girls by Pakistani men. Instead the year-long
Government-backed investigation will say that child sex abuse is a
problem caused by men of all backgrounds in towns and cities across the
country. The findings of the inquiry by Sue Berelowitz, the Deputy
Children’s Commissioner for England, are likely to anger ministers and
provoke disbelief among those who have observed and investigated cases
of abuse of teenage girls in towns in Lancashire and Yorkshire. … Education Secretary Michael Gove said in May that Miss Berelowitz
should not let her inquiries be swayed by questions of prejudice and
should instead ‘ask tough questions about cultural background’. However
her first report, to be published next week, will argue that the problem
lies with men from all ethnic backgrounds. … A spokesman for Miss
Berelowitz said there would be no comment on the report until it is
published next week. But a senior political figure with long experience
of trying to combat sex gangs said there is a specific problem with
groups of young Pakistani men, and that Miss Berelowitz would be wrong
to ignore it. (Sex gangs report ‘will play down threat of Pakistani men targeting white girls’, The Daily Mail, 16th November 2012)
Friends of Rape #3 and #4: Nazir Afzal and Javed Khan
These two dishonest and deceitful Muslims are, respectively, the
“Crown Prosecution Service’s lead on child sexual abuse” and the Chief
Executive of the Child Welfare charity Barnardo’s. The blogger Irish Savant reacts to them like this:
How the hell have what are arguably the two most
important positions for preventing child abuse been awarded to members
of the ethno-religious ‘community’ that specialises in this very crime?
It goes without saying that there were many native British applicants
for these posts. But in each case they appointed those from a community
notorious for its treatment of and attitude to child sex abuse as well
as a byword for corruption, extremism, filth and incompetence. (Monkeys and bananas, Irish Savant, 5th September 2014)
Friend of Rape #5: Jonathan Freedland
When this Jewish journalist at the Guardian learned about White girls in Rotherham being raped and threatened with incineration, his thoughts naturally flew to another group who have suffered appallingly: some Jews who had eggs thrown at them in 2006:
Rotherham inquiry: the ‘PC gone mad’ defence is itself a form of racism This week political correctness was blamed for a vicious and
persistent series of crimes: the organised rape and sexual exploitation
of 1,400 children, most of them girls, in Rotherham. The Conservative
MEP Daniel Hannan – said to be the intellectual guru to Ukip’s Douglas
Carswell – argued that “these children were victims of ‘anti-racism’”.
In this he echoed much of the press commentary, seizing on a finding of
the Jay inquiry that those who should have protected Rotherham’s young
from predators of Pakistani heritage were instead cowed by fear of being
branded racist. … How much easier for police or council officials who had neglected
their duty to blame the terrifying commissars of political correctness
rather than admit they messed up. If that strikes me as plausible, it’s
partly down to personal experience. Several years ago I witnessed an
incident in the East End of London when an outdoor memorial service
was disrupted by a handful of Asian men, who pelted the mainly elderly
mourners present with vegetables and eggs. The police were called but
insisted they could do nothing. One officer told those who’d been hit
he’d like to go after the offenders but he couldn’t: “It’s the Human
Rights Act.” That sounds laughable now, so obviously an excuse for inaction. But
I’d go further. In a subtle way, such a claim – and indeed similar
invocations of political correctness – represent a kind of racism. For
what is being implied when a council or police force say they cannot
stop a ring of men raping children? … For what low opinion must you have
of those of Pakistani heritage to think that they, or Muslims more
widely, would be offended by the prospect of violent paedophiles facing
justice for their crimes? Posing as cultural sensitivity, such a concern
betrays contempt: by presuming they would stand by the abusers and
torturers in their midst it damns an entire community for the vile
behaviour of a few. (Rotherham inquiry: the ‘PC gone mad’ defence is itself a form of racism, The Guardian, 29th August 2014)
So Freedland piously believes that the Muslim “community” doesn’t
support “abusers and torturers.” The Labour MP Simon Danczuk has a
different story:
I’ve also had [Muslim] family members come to my
[parliamentary] surgery asking me to make representations on behalf of
brothers who have been found guilty of child sex abuse. When I refuse, I
frequently receive a tirade of abuse. “These girls are prostitutes,”
one man shouted at me, and warned that I would pay a heavy price for not
supporting him. He’d get thousands of people not to vote for me. (Rotherham is not an isolated incident, The Daily Telegraph, 31st August 2014)
A year ago, I think that Danczuk would have been howled out of
politics for speaking the truth like that. But he’s said even more:
Rotherham: politics ‘imported from Pakistan’ fuelled sex abuse cover-up – MP An unhealthy brand of politics “imported” from Pakistan is partly to
blame for the cover-up of mass child abuse in Rotherham and other
British cities, a campaigning MP has claimed. Simon Danczuk, who helped
expose a pattern of grooming of white teenage girls by men from a
Pakistani background in Rochdale, where he is the Labour MP, said a
culture of intimidation and closing of ranks within parts of the Asian
community had mired politics in towns and cities across northern England
for years. Mr Danczuk said the elements of Pakistani political culture itself
were partly to blame for the cover-up. “There are cultural issues around
the way politics are done in the Asian community which have to change,”
he said. He said he had personally come under pressure from Asian
councillors and members of the community for speaking out as well as
being warned by prominent figures in his party. He pointed to the way in which two Muslim councillors in Rochdale had
provided character references for one of the perpetrators of the
Rochdale abuse. “Politics are done differently in Pakistan, it is a
cultural difference we have imported some of that into some of these
northern towns and cities and I think we have to face up to the fact
that we can’t carry on doing politics like that. “It is not healthy and the direct consequence is that we end up
having to tackle issues like has been faced in Rotherham.” He described
it as “a looking after your own” within the Asian community which other
politicians had accepted. “Pressure was applied, that’s what will have
happened to Denis MacShane and he went along with it,” he said,
referring to comments last week from the disgraced former MP for
Rotherham who said he had shied away from the issue because he was a
“Guardian reading liberal leftie”. (Rotherham: politics ‘imported from Pakistan’ fuelled sex abuse cover-up – MP, The Sunday Telegraph, 31st August 2014)
Friend of Rape #6: Hugh Muir
Hugh Muir is one of the Guardian’s prized Black journalists. When reality contradicts his ideology, he does the right thing and denies reality:
Blaming the Rotherham abuse scandal on political correctness is ludicrous The news from Rotherham becomes more horrific. Up to 1,400 children
exploited and abused. And today we learn via an audit by Her Majesty’s
Inspectorate of Constabulary that officers from South Yorkshire police –
to whom many victims turned – were previously criticised by the police
inspectorate for spending “a great deal of time trying to disprove
victims’ allegations”. Little wonder so many victims felt they had to
fend for themselves. … But can it really be true – as the tabloids and the right robustly
claim – that a significant contributor truly was political correctness;
the fear of officials that by intervening appropriately in cases where
the suspects were Pakistani Muslims, they themselves would be castigated
as racist? If it is, it is outrageous. It is also ludicrous. … If a backlash was feared, where would it have come from? There is no
minority lobby for criminals and paedophiles. So long as communities
knew the issue was one of law enforcement rather than an assault on
those communities themselves, they would have supported tough action by
the authorities. … In no other sphere does PC and its terrors prevent
the authorities taking action against minorities. We’re over-represented
in courts and prisons at one end of the social scale, overdisciplined
and marginalised in the professions at the other. If it is true that
political correctness prevented the authorities from using their powers
against minorities for fear of giving offence, that’s a scandal. It
would also be a first. (Blaming the Rotherham abuse scandal on political correctness is ludicrous, The Guardian, )
first? Hugh Muir doesn’t appear to read his own newspaper, which said
this in February 2014: “Female genital mutilation (FGM) has been a
crime in the UK since 1985. An estimated 65,000 girls aged 13 and under
are at risk of mutilation. So why has there been a grand total of zero
prosecutions?” (see here). He may also have missed this, published in the Guardian in
September: “The Home Office researcher … also said she had been accused
of being insensitive when she told one official that most of the
perpetrators were from Rotherham’s Pakistani community. A female
colleague talked to her about the incident. ‘She said you must never
refer to that again – you must never refer to Asian men. And her other
response was to book me on a two-day ethnicity and diversity course to
raise my awareness of ethnic issues.’” (see here). And if Muir thinks there is “no minority lobby for criminals and
paedophiles,” he needs to read what the Labour MP Simon Danczuk says
about the “abuse” he receives from Muslims when he declines to make
“representations on behalf of brothers who have been found guilty of
child sex abuse” (see here and above).
Friend of Rape #7: Libby Brooks
While vibrant rape-gangs were hard at work in Rotherham, Oxford, Telford and many other British cities, Libby Brooks was hard at work too, denying reality and helping the crimes to continue:
Grooming and our ignoble tradition of racialising
crime: Dubious claims about Muslim men grooming white girls hide
legitimate worries about a system that fails victims of abuse … the Times has marshalled evidence suggesting that these
organised crimes are carried out almost exclusively by gangs of
Pakistani Muslim origin who target white youngsters; and it quotes both
police and agency sources who refer to a “conspiracy of silence” around
the open investigation of such cases, amid fears of being branded racist
or inflaming ethnic tensions in already precarious local environments. … There is an ignoble tradition of racialising criminality in this
country, in particular sexual offences, from the moral panic about West
Indian pimps in the 1960s to the statistically dubious coverage of
African-Caribbean gang rape in the 90s [she should have said
“statistically damning”]. … The efforts of the Times to stand
up this investigation are certainly considerable: selectively quoting or
misquoting some groups, and inventing a category of “on-street
grooming” that does not exist in law and was not recognised by any of
the agencies I spoke to. It is also worth asking how responsible it is
to provide ammunition to the violent racist extremists already active in
these areas on such flawed evidence. (Grooming and our ignoble tradition of racialising crime, The Guardian, 7th January 2011)
Friend of Rape #8: Liz Fekete
Last but not least, we have the Jewish anti-fascist Liz Fekete, who has worked for decades to conceal the truth about vibrant crime and ensure that it continues. She wrote this in 2012:
Given the current climate, in which the far Right accuses
the anti-racist lobby of imposing a conspiracy of silence about Muslim
involvement in ‘on-street grooming’, I was quite surprised to see you
similarly accuse the ‘left’ and anti-racists of being ‘too quick to try
and silence any discussion’ and of turning a blind eye to the fact that
the bulk of perpetrators of what you describe as ‘on-street grooming’
come from the British-Pakistani community. But what I really take issue
with is your uncritical, and occasionally slanted, take on Ministry of
Justice crime statistics. There is, as you will know, a long history of racialising sex crimes
in this country – Jews being associated with paedophilia in the 1930s,
West Indians with pimping in the 1950s and now the focus has shifted to
Muslim ‘groomers’ [on the contrary, I suggest that all these
“racialisations” are accurate]. And statistics (just like attitude
surveys) are not scientific and neutral but can be manipulated to suit
an argument. … It recalled for me the time in the 1980s when the media
and the fascists were creating the spectre of the ‘black mugger’ and the
Metropolitan police added to the moral panic by isolating ‘assault or
threat of violence upon a person, especially with intent to rob’ from
all street crime and then providing the ethnicity of the perpetrators.
Then, young African-Caribbean men were being accused of
racially-motivated attacks on ‘little white old ladies’ in much the same
way as Muslims as a whole are accused of anti-white sex crimes. (Grooming: an open letter to Nick Lowles, The Institute of Race Relations, 15th November 2012)
The names listed above are the guilty Guardianistas: the traitors, liars and promoters of non-Whitemurder, rape and corruption. But I think their day is ending. Those comments by Simon Danczuk about Pakistani corruption would have ended his career in the recent past. Not now. A Tory MP has publicly affirmed
his belief that Enoch Powell was right to say mass immigration would
end in disaster. That too would have been a career-killer in the recent
past. Not now.
Instead, liberals are on the defensive, frantically lying and blowing
smoke as they try to conceal the moral bankruptcy of their ideology and
causes. There are more scandals like Rotherham to come and each new
revelation will further expose liberals for what they are: promoters of
hate and chaos, enemies of women and children, not friends and
protectors. The Rotherham scandal has set a stake on the heart of the
liberal vampire. Now history will begin to hammer it home.
