The problem of the Establishment mentality – Part 1
The other day I received an email from a reader who expressed the same vexing disbelief felt by all of us, I would say, about the role of “the Establishment” in this vast and viscerally offensive phenomenon that has become known euphemistically as Moslem Grooming.
Steve S, I shall call him, asked how, “given the length of time, the quantity of the victims, and narrow demographics of the perpetrators and the horrific nature of the crime” there could have been literally no Establishment response, beyond an implacable will to look away.
Well, Steve, the time period over which the crime has been around is well over 25 years. Back in 1988 there had been an uproar among Sikhs in Birmingham when girls from their community were targeted by Moslem men. Then, when news of the first Rochdale trial finally broke into the press (that is, when the press was forced to report it), a retired police officer came forward to report that as long ago as the early 90s he personally was ordered not to investigate victims’ complaints. Because of the “grooming” nature of the offence, involving supposed boyfriends, drugs, alcohol, and other forms of bribing the girls, it is likely to have been initiated by Mirpuris of the second or later generations. It could have been going on thirty or even forty years ago. However, it is not limited to Mirpuri or even Pakistani Moslems today. The BNP has reported that in Wrexham, for example, the offenders are Iraqi.
Given the uncertainty of the time-scale, the quantity of victims is, of course, impossible to assess with any degree of certainty. The latest assessment for Rotherham is that there have been around 2,000 victims there alone. But Rotherham, it has been said, is dwarfed by events in Manchester and Sheffield. There has been talk of “the tip of the iceberg”. There have been over fifty cases brought to court so far – few of them reported nationally. The other day I saw someone use an estimate of 130,000 victims from day one – whenever that might have been - and that could be the right sort of scale. We just don’t know.
The other thing is the nature of the crimes and the weakness and vulnerability of the victims. At least one girl was murdered (Charlene Downes in Blackpool, just 14, her body never found, her flesh, it was alleged by police, rendered for burgers). There was a suicide in Rotherham. We don’t know how many others there have been elsewhere. The two official reports into Rotherham and the evidence of the various trials around the country have produced some distressing accounts of what these girls went through. One girl was raped with a broken bottle. Another was branded with a hot hairpin. Another had her tongue nailed to a table. Another who became pregnant, as many did, was subjected to a crude amateur abortion and almost died. Another innocent was made to believe she was going to be beheaded. Another was doused in petrol and threatened with a lighter. Others were threatened with fire-bombing of the family home. There were innumerable cases of family members threatened with violence.
And then there was the rapes. These girls - some as young as eleven, maybe even ten, and many in council care - were (and are) handed around like sweets to older men, frequently relatives of the “boyfriends”. An unknown number of girls were (and are) sexually enslaved, trafficked and prostituted on the basis that they are young, white, and fresh. The going rate could be up to £200 a time, apparently. To put that into context, on average an adult female prostitute in a British city “entertains” her clients for £60. In 2001, a police investigation in Kieghley found a 13-year-old girl who had had more than a hundred Asian sexual partners. Social Services in the town were dealing with seventy separate complaints by girls. But these were children and this was (and is) paedophile rape – in our culture and justice system one of the most serious of all crimes. Yet the nett result … the Establishment response … was to actively cover up the whole ghastly business – even to the extent of filleting social services files in Rotherham. But it was the same culture of deliberate and determined neglect, even complicity, everywhere. The Keighley MP at the time, the redoubtable Ann Cryer, who was alone among MPs in acting with some honour on the matter, said herself that, “It wasn’t an easy subject to approach. It could give a way of attacking the Asian community. But I was horrified. People said this had been going on for years.”
Cryer was subsequently cold-shouldered by her fellow Labour MPs at Westminster.
The official culture of omerta was briefly challenged on 22nd August 2003 by the Channel 4 documentary Edge of the City, which reported from Cryer’s Kieghley constituency. At this time Nick Griffin had already presented West Yorkshire police with a dossier of evidence gathered by BNP activists (I believe as early as 2001). On 15th July 2004 the BBC documentary The Secret Agent was broadcast, showing covertly recorded speeches by Griffin and Mark Collett to a party gathering at the Reservoir Tavern, Kieghley the previous January. On 14th December 2004 Griffin and Collett found themselves under arrest and charged with “using words or behaviour intended or likely to stir up racial hatred”. The Crown Prosecution Service went to trial twice at Leeds Crown Court to try to put them away. The jury acquitted them at the second time of asking. They were free men.
But nothing more would be heard of “Moslem Grooming” until Times journalist Andrew Norfolk broke ranks on 5th January 2011 with a nominally investigative piece titled, “Revealed: conspiracy of silence on UK sex gangs”. It was not really a Times investigation as such. In 2010 the Derby sex gang, a group of thirteen “mostly Pakistani” males, had been sent to trial for seventy-five offences involving twenty-six “mostly white” girls aged between twelve and eighteen years old. Nine of the defendants were convicted of grooming and rape. The police and the trial judge very “correctly” put away any suggestion that race played a part in the crimes. It was admitted that Moslem Asian men had been disproportionately represented among offenders reported for child grooming. Of the fifty-six men convicted in the Midlands and north of England since 1997 (when two Moslem Asian taxi drivers in Leeds were jailed for raping twenty young girls) fifty were from Moslem backgrounds. But no conclusions were to be drawn. After the Derby trial, Peter Davies, the head of Child Exploitation and Online Protection, was quick to tell the world that “looking at this issue through the lens of ethnicity does not do the victims any favours.” Neither he nor anyone else in the state machine could be accused of doing that.
But the Derby trial gave Norfolk at the Times the storyline and the statistics he needed. His article was widely reported in the nationals and the broadcast media. Something in the national mood, after all these years, had changed. The racial toothpaste was out of the political tube – at least a little of it was - and because Norfolk had shone light not just on the offenders but on the police and social services, it couldn’t be put back as it had been in 2003/4.
The immediate result was fair media coverage of the Rochdale trial, which ended on 8th May 2012 with the conviction of eight Pakistanis and one Afghan asylum seeker on charges of rape, trafficking girls for sex, and conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with a child. One defendant was cleared of all charges. The jury could not agree on a verdict on another. A third escaped justice by fleeing to Pakistan.
Among those who found the opportunity to speak to the media in the aftermath of the trial was Ann Cryer. She told a BBC documentary film crew (shooting Quitting the English Defence League: when Tommy Robinson met Mo) that she had been “round at the police station virtually every week” to plead with the guardians of law and order to do something. She had done the same with social services. “But”, she said, “neither the police nor social services would touch those cases … I think it was they were afraid of being called racist.”
So we return to Steve’s question. How could all those white people involved locally and nationally in all these towns and cities… perfectly intelligent and capable, trained professionals ... not sexual deviants, not criminals but otherwise decent men and women, and probably parents in most cases, every last one of them with the power to speak and act ... how could all those social workers, police officers, local councillors and MPs, legal professionals, church authorities, health professionals, Home Office managers, party leaders and managers, feminist campaigners, local and national journalists and media owners … how could they all quietly agree to turn their heads away from the suffering of these children? What kind of person can do that?
Certainly, it isn’t a question much of the media has been willing to ask, in all the thousands of words that have been printed in the aftermath of “Rochdale 1”. There has been some buck-passing, though. The Guardian’s Jonathan Freedland blamed it all, shamelessly, on the police (a line that I noticed leftist blog-commenters at the DT duly adopted for a time). Nothing to do with Pee-Cee at all, you see. The DT journalist Sean Thomas blamed the “racist demagogues” of the BNP, especially Nick Griffin. “It was thanks in part to his thuggish intervention that society felt able to ignore the scandal. And thus the abuse continued,” he wrote.
What has actually been continued, of course, has been the great multicultural project. This is an “all costs” endeavour - this is really what it’s all about. And if those costs are paid, in part, in the blood and pain of white children, well, that’s something which can’t be allowed to obstruct “progress” in multiracialising the English people’s land. That priority is clear. It is why James Brokenshire, Minister for Security and Immigration, rode straight to war against “the far right”. “The ugly face of the far right,” he told some spurious anti-white conference in London, was a real danger to public safety and had the same aim as Islamist extremists of seeking to reshape society.
At least he made it clear who the real enemy is: outraged white men. Of course! Far be it from him or anyone else to address the cause of their righteous anger.
But Brokenshire was far from alone in getting it spectacularly, wilfully wrong. Usual suspect Sue Berlowicz, the deputy Children’s Commissioner, produced a report for her Commission that was so offensive even government ministers had to turn their noses up at it. She wrote:
The facts, however, are that of 545 offenders in this category only 166 were white British, 415 were Asian, 266 were black, 49 were mixed-race. The woman not only put “White British males” left, right, and centre, she quietly dropped Moslems from the charge sheet entirely.
Maggie Blyth, independent chairman of the Safeguarding Children Board, did better. But not much. She managed to address the role of the police, social and health services. But she blamed only “systemic failings” and a “reluctance to condemn under-aged sex as wrong”. Of course, it was just under-age sex. Those bad, bad white girls.
Among the thinking classes of the left no one is more courted for his wise and illuminating pronouncements than the “Elvis of culture theory” Slavoj Žižek. But he, too, walked round and round the problem in his search at the Guardian for “difficult questions”. He managed just two paragraphs about Moslems out of thirteen, and none at all about the malign neglect of the authorities. For him, this is all about the “different visions of how different cultures can and should co-exist”. So right off the bat he is avoiding the only real question that is difficult for the liberal Establishment: why are 4-5 million Moslems (and counting) in England at all? Not how, mind you – we know how they got here. But why. We have never been told that.
Let’s remind ourselves how easy it is to get this right. On 27th August 2014 the DT carried a piece by the stirling Allison Pearson in the aftermath of Professor Alexis Jay’s report into the Rotherham scandal. Amazingly, the thread was open and the top-rated comment is by 70sgirly:
So if a DT commenter can come right out and say it, why can’t the “experts”? Because, of course, they know they are guilty and they do not want to discuss it. It takes a man with nothing to lose to admit what was going on. Denis MacShane, MP for Rotherham from 1994 to 2012, and recently released jailbird, came perilously close to honesty on the matter, telling the BBC’s World At One that “there was a culture of not wanting to rock the multicultural community boat, if I may put it like that. Perhaps, yes, as a true Guardian reader and liberal-leftie, I suppose I didn’t want to raise that too hard.”
As “a true Guardian reader and liberal-leftie” he would have been screaming his lying head off at Nick Griffin in 2001 and again in 2004, and freezing out Ann Cryer in between. Those white men and women who wield power in this country at every level, and all their fellow-travellers, are in the grip of a vast pathology of Mind. It is wantonly killing our people. In part 2 of this essay I will endeavour to penetrate to the heart of that sickness, and provide reader Steve with a meaningful answer.
Post a comment: