Cracking book.

The most discouraging fact that Murray documents is the complete bad faith on the part of the elites who played a game of gaslighting the public. Whenever anyone would raise a question about immigration, they would be shouted down as racists and their concerns would be mocked. This occurred constantly as immigration numbers ratcheted up and civil liberties ratcheted down. This bad faith among elites is particularly noteworthy with respect to criminal activities:

“The January before the release of the 2011 census results a gang of nine Muslim men — seven of pakistani origin, two from North Africa — were convicted and sentenced at the Old Bailey in London for the sex trafficking of children between the ages of 11 and 15. On that occasion one of the victims sold into a form of modern-day slavery was a girl of 11 who was branded with the initial of her ‘owner’ abuser: ‘M’ for Mohammed. The court heard that Mohammed ‘branded her to make her his property and to ensure others knew about it’. This did not happen in a Saudi or pakistani backwater, nor even in one of the northern towns that so much of the country had forgotten about and which had seen many similar cases over the same period. This happened in Oxfordshire between 2004 and 2012. Nobody could argue that gang rape or child abuse are the preserve of immigrants, but the development of particular types of child-rape gangs revealed – and a subsequent government-commissioned inquiry confirmed6 – specific cultural ideas and attitudes that were clearly held by some immigrants. These include views about women, specifically non-Muslim women, other religions, races and sexual minorities that were pre-medieval. Fear of accusations of ‘racism’ for pointing out such facts, and the small but salutary number of careers like Ray Honeyford’s that had been publicly wrecked for saying far less, meant that it took years even for such facts as these to come out. This has a terrorising effect far beyond the nation’s television studios, and with far more serious consequences. When these gang-rape cases came to court they did so in spite of local police, councillors and care-workers, many of whom were discovered to have failed to report such crimes involving immigrant gangs for fear of accusations of ‘racism’. The media followed suit, filling their reports with euphemisms as though trying to avoid helping the public to draw any conclusions. So in cases like those in Oxfordshire the gangs were described as ‘Asian’ when they almost solely involved Muslim men of pakistani origin. The fact that their victims were chosen precisely because they were not Muslims was only occasionally mentioned in the courts and rarely dwelt upon by the press. Instead of carrying out their jobs without fear or favour, police, prosecutors and journalists behaved as though their job was to mediate between the public and the facts.

Here is another example of the governmental lies and cognitive dissonance:

“Whereas in 1975 there were 421 rapes reported to the Swedish police, by 2014 the annual number of rapes reported had risen to 6,620.5 By 2015 Sweden had the highest level of rapes per capita of any country in the world after Lesotho. When the Swedish press did report these events they wilfully misreported them. For instance, after the gang rape of a girl on a ferry from Stockholm to Abo, Finland, it was reported that the culprits were ‘Swedish men’ when they were in fact Somalis. It was the same story as in all of the neighbouring countries. Research published in Denmark in 2016 showed that Somali men were around twenty-six times more likely to commit rape than Danish men, adjusted for age.6 And yet in Sweden as everywhere else this subject remained unbroachable.”

The public was never consulted on immigration issues, although consistently staked out a position that it wanted a lower immigration rate than the government was regularly permitting. The elite attitude seems to be that of managers of a hotel who don’t care who the tenants are so long as the rents keep coming in. Witness this comment for example:

“In October 2015 the government put on a conference in support of its migration policy entitled ‘Sweden Together’. The King and Queen of Sweden were in attendance along with most of the rest of the political establishment. Among the speakers was Ingrid Lomfors, the head of Sweden’s ‘Living History Forum’ (a Holocaust education body). In her much-praised speech Lomfors insisted upon three things: that immigration to Sweden is nothing new, that everyone is a migrant really, and that in any case there is no such thing as Swedish culture.”

The crows are coming home to roost, however. Currently, a reviled “far right” anti-immigration party leads the polls in Sweden. Although too late for the book, Austria has elected an anti-immigration government, and, in America, profiting from a similar history of government lies on immigration, in 2016, Donald Trump was elected president.

This is a prescient book that explains a lot about why we are where we are today.

Odd how none of the usual lefties on here have decided not to comment on this thread.

"It feels much better than it ever did, much more sensitive." John Wayne Bobbit

Maybe some have only just seen it.

Sounds like a lot of nonsense if you ask me.

BTW the Swedish Democrats are not leading the polls. How accurate is the rest of it?

[Link]

Only for you,Tom (nice to see you)

From a review of the book:

"Naked racism may still be unacceptable in polite society. But post-Brexit vote there’s a clear market emerging for a slightly posher, better-read, more respectable way of saying that you’d rather not live next door to Romanians or think Muslims are coming to rape your womenfolk. Think Daily Mail columnist Katie Hopkins, but with longer words, and for people who wouldn’t be seen dead on an English Defence League march – although one of the more ridiculous contentions in this book by the journalist Douglas Murray is that the EDL are actually terribly misunderstood chaps, who have a point, and aren’t really to blame for the way their rallies regularly end in violence."

Clearly Mr Murray is a true sage of our times for (naturally) all objective, unbiased and unprejudiced readers

Edited by legaleagle (04 Dec 2017 9.18pm)

It's almost a racist double bluff isn't it. Using 'they just called me racist' as a defence for being racist.

Accusing people of 'racism' for stating facts or taking a view is absurd.
If they tell lies to perpetuate prejudice, then that is different.