The Rape of Britain: The Fate Awaiting Majority Non-White, Post-National Multicultural States, By Richard Miller (London)

We have covered at the blog, yesterday the controversy ignited by Elon Musk over the failure of the British state to deal with the grooming gangs of South Asians, who raped, tortured and murdered White British female children. The present government was called out for their report that held that such a belief is a Right -wing conspiracy, even though there have been some prosecutions. Indeed, this issue has been seriously considered by international newspapers such as Forbes, with an article by leading UK conservative philosopher, Roger Scruton being but one example: https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerscruton/2014/08/30/why-did-british-police-ignore-pakistani-gangs-raping-rotherham-children-political-correctness/. Scruton argues that the UK police allowed the 1,400 children of Rotherham to be raped because of political correctness, not wanting to stir up the White population. There are debates about the number of victims, with some figures being up to 250,000 raped White children, and higher. All that in a wonderful "diverse" society.

In a recent article, Joseph Addington takes Professor Scruton's argument further, linking it to the general problem of mass immigration:

"In the West, accordingly, nearly all countries have chosen to allow unprecedented masses of immigrants from distant ethnicities and cultures entry and citizenship in their countries, hoping to stave off demographic and economic decline and maintain the solvency of their welfare systems.

It has been, almost everywhere, an unpopular decision. The broader populace has never been particularly favorable to mass migration with its accompanying crime, urban disorder, ghettoization, and, in Europe, the rise of Islamic terrorism and political extremism. But the ruling classes are, by their nature, largely insulated from these concerns. Safe in gated communities and protected by private security, politicians on both sides of the aisle were able to hand the costs of immigration to the lower classes while reaping the benefits themselves.

But that doesn't mean they have been unaware of the costs. Indeed, elites are keenly aware of the potential dangers of mass immigration. They have, accordingly, expended vast amounts of effort and money on "managing racial tensions," deploying educational initiatives, nonprofits, media campaigns, regulations and incentives for private corporations, and of course the organs of state to clamp down on potential conflict between natives and newcomers. Disturbers of the peace are suppressed, dismissed, ostracized, and even arrested, some for no greater a crime than speaking their opinion. (The UK lacking the robust freedom of speech protections of the First Amendment, imprisonment for speech posted on the internet is routine).

The tens of thousands of young British girls raped, tortured, and abused by Pakistanis were simply the necessary sacrifices required to maintain the new, multicultural, postnational state in the UK. Their suffering was less important than the maintenance of social harmony required by the modern sociopolitical arrangement that has succeeded postwar Britain.

Of course, much, perhaps even most of the behavior—by police, political, or media figures—was not a conscious attempt to buy social harmony at the expense of child rape. A few British officials innocently accepted the religious outlook of modern progressivism, which places the provocation of racism in society as the chief sin. Far more importantly, all were aware that, whatever their own opinions on the matter, that religious outlook carries the sanction of state—officials who looked too closely into potentially inflammatory cases might soon find themselves facing allegations of wrongdoing. The police were already familiar with such accusations: The Macpherson Report of 1999 had tarred the Metropolitan Police Service with being guilty of "institutional racism" for its handling of the murder of the black man Stephen Lawrence in 1993.

But the crimes are too numerous, the evidence too damning, for those involved to maintain any kind of innocence, even if there was not a conspiracy. The officers and politicians were well aware of the horrific crimes they were abetting, whether their intentions were for the "good of society" or to preserve their own skins. "There must have been councillors and MPs, I think, all over the country who knew what was going on but were terrified," said Anne Cryer, a politician who unsuccessfully advocated for investigation into sexual abuse cases by Pakistani men in her district in 2002. "It's a genuine fear, to be terrified of being labelled a racist. No one wants to be called a racist, least of all someone who isn't a racist."

It may have been unwise, in the long run, to have attempted to preserve racial harmony by enabling horrific, racialized abuses against the native population. But the logic of the multicultural society requires that the state and organs of elite opinion privilege minorities and clamp down on potentially divisive events. The remaking of the nation requires a moral reordering, and the new code must place diversity and ethnic harmony as the chief virtues and racism as the chief vice if the new mode and order is to function. Else, they might legitimize a rejection of multiculturalism in light of some higher social good—such as the protection of children.

Nor was it necessarily a bad bet. The scandal has broken its bounds today, but up until the beginning of this week, it seemed to have been well contained. We are now more than 10 years from the day the news broke that the British government was complicit in the systematic rape of thousands of girls; what consequences have been suffered by the guilty?

None whatsoever. No one has been prosecuted for their complicity in these awful crimes. No police officer so much as lost their job over the matter. The political consequences have been minute—the head of the Crown Prosecution Service from 2008 to 2013, when the scandal broke, was none other than Keir Starmer, currently Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. The mainstream press coverage of the scandal was extant but minimal, and draconian laws concerning the publicization of criminal trials meant that many of the worst details came out only quietly after the fact.

Even the criminals themselves—rapists, torturers, murderers—have gotten off lightly. Many of them received sentences of ten years or less, and have already returned to sully the streets of Britain."

As I see it, the mass grooming rapes is a knockdown refutation of the cult of multiculturalism and diversity. "Ethnic strife, declining social trust, the proliferation of crime, the alienation of the native population from its homeland, the suppression of speech and opinion, and finally the cooperation of government with foreign rapists and abusers against its own citizens are the fruits of such a social order. The multicultural project is in rebellion against human nature; it can only be maintained by a state that systematically lies, oppresses its own citizens, and disregards the vulnerable it has a responsibility to protect.

It must not last."

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-rape-of-britain/