The unmourned victims of Britain’s anti-white policies

(Note: I neglected to point out that McKinstrey’s column is very powerful, notwithstanding its flaws.)

Savage, racially motivated nonwhite attacks on whites in Britain are not punished, and savage murders of whites by nonwhites go unremarked and unmourned. Leo McKinstrey calls the problem “political correctness.” This is a pathetically abstract term for something so concrete and so evil. McKinstry says Britain’s white elites are motivated by guilt. I would say that Britain’s elites are not motivated by guilt; they are motivated by their belief in the guilt of OTHER white people, the white people who are being harmed and killed by nonwhites. He says that “our ruling elite” are “deluded by the ideology of cultural diversity,” as though they were well meaning people who were merely confused. They are not confused. They BELIEVE in cultural diversity and are using it to destroy “non-diverse,” i.e. white, Britain.

How can McKinstrey, one of the most outspoken conservative-leaning columnists in Britain, say that the ruling elite is merely “deluded” by the ideology of cultural diversity, years after the revelation that Blair’s Labour government had greatly increased immigration for the deliberate purpose of so increasing Britain’s diversity that the conservative part of Britain would be overwhelmed? As I put it at the time, “[T]he object was to change Britain so much that there would be no historic Britain left to defend.” Perhaps McKinstrey can’t face the truth of how evil Britain’s governing class really is.

Here’s the column:

Dogma of political correctness is dangerously weakening Britain’s traditional concept of justice
Thursday December 8,2011
By Leo McKinstry

THE dogma of political correctness is dangerously weakening Britain’s traditional concept of justice.

Our ruling elite are so deluded by the ideology of cultural diversity that they have lost the ability to protect the innocent and punish the guilty.

That is the only conclusion to be drawn from the outrageous leniency shown by a court this week towards a gang of Somalian Muslim women who savagely beat up a white woman in Leicster city centre. In a brutal, unprovoked assault, the thugs knocked Rhea Page to the ground, then repeatedly kicked in the head while calling her a “white bitch” and “white slag.”

Ms Page, who was so traumatised by the incident that she has lost her job as a carer for people with learning disabilities, later said: “I thought they were going to kill me.”

Incredibly, despite the ferocity of the attack, the judge gave the girls only suspended sentences, even though he could have jailed them for up to five years.

His bizarre decision came after the defence told him that the Muslim assailants had been drinking and were “not used to being drunk” because of their religion.

As a cause for mitigation, this is absurd. Why on earth should Muslims be treated any differently to other offenders, simply on the grounds of their faith?

If they are so pious, so respectful of Islamic rituals, why were they drinking in the first place? And shouldn’t their drunkenness in public, an offence in itself, have added to the seriousness of their crime rather than lessened it?

Just as troubling was the failure of the authorities to charge the gang with racially-aggravated assault. For nothing could be more racially abusive than their barbaric cry of “kill the white bitch.”

We can be pretty sure that if a Somalian Muslim girl had been kicked to the ground by a group of white brutes, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Police would have taken a tougher approach.

The disgraceful message of this episode is that Muslims can get drunk and maim almost with impunity because the state is so craven about their creed.

The case makes a mockery of the idea of equality before the law—one of the cornerstones of liberal democracy.

The reluctance to imprison Ms Page’s attackers is so indicative of the supine, guilt-ridden mindset of our modern ruling class, where cowardice is dressed up as cultural sensitivity and self-loathing masquerades as tolerance.

This mentality, which is tearing apart the moral bonds of our civilisation, can be seen all around us. A classic recent example was the police’s initial paralysing feebleness towards the rioters last August because of fears about accusations of racism.

The same is true of the hesitancy in tackling so-called “honour” attacks on women in Muslim communities.

Only last week, it was revealed that the total of these appalling incidents, some of them fatal, is approaching 3,000 a year.

In a similar vein, the police and social services have long been terrified of talking openly about the growing problem of Pakistani gangs preying on white girls in northern towns.

As Detective Inspector Alan Edwards, an expert in the field, has said, “Everyone’s been too scared to address the ethnicity factor.”

In the twisted world of our civic institutions, minorities are always seen as victims.

Even the worst behaviour of some in their communities is excused by references to poverty or racism or social exclusion.

That certainly applies to the Somalian community in Britain, who are constantly presented one of the most oppressed groups in the country.

But, in truth, the oppression can work the other way. Too many Somalians have become a burden on the British taxpayer, thanks to their welfare dependency.

Over 80 per cent of them, for instance, live in taxpayer-funded homes. Moreover Somalian gangs, most of them peddling drugs, have helped to create a climate of fear in parts of our cities through their enthusiasm for violence and contempt for the law.

As one Somalian youth from the notorious Woolwich Boys says, “We’ve come over here with one thing on our mind—money. We don’t care how we get it. The Government doesn’t stand a chance.”

Tremendous double standards are at work over race crime. Racial killings of whites are frequently downplayed or forgotten.

The name of Kriss Donald is almost unknown today, yet the circumstances of his death could hardly have been more horrific.

In March 2004, while walking through Glasgow, the 15-year-old schoolboy was kidnapped by a Pakistani gang, dragged to open land, tortured, stabbed 13 times and set on fire while he was still alive.

Fortunately the gang was caught and convicted, but this monstrous crime provoked no great outpouring of moral anguish.

Peter Fahy, one of Britain’s leading chief constables, once said that political correctness means it is “harder to get the media interested” when the victims are “young white men.”

The British establishment is guilty of nothing less than reverse racism. Their members, from judges to politicians, think they are enlightened and compassionate. But in truth they are filled with prejudice.

For often they refuse to expect the same standards of civilised behaviour from certain minorities that they demand of the indigenous population.

Such a perverted outlook is the opposite of equality. In the name of anti-racism, they have ended up in the bizarre position of promoting discrimination.

That is no way to achieve the integration and cohesion that our society so badly needs.

- end of initial entry -

Jim C. writes:

“Leo McKinstrey calls the problem “political correctness.” This is a pathetically abstract term for something so concrete and so evil”—Auster

I agree: political correctness is a term that describes how the larger society lies to placate minorities and their many deficiencies. If Mr. McKinstrey had correctly described the problem as state-sanctioned lying to protect criminals, I believe more would be done to combat dark immigration and vile dark criminality.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 12, 2011 11:48 AM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):