Category Archives: Muslims (British)

Britain’s wilful neglect in the face of Muslim crime and depravity

A few years ago, Dalrymple reminds us,

it came to light that police in Rotherham had for decades systematically turned a blind eye to the mass sexual abuse of children—at least 1,400 victims—by Muslim men.

He explains also that his British-born female Muslim patients tell him that school inspectors

never intervened when their parents prevented them from attending school, often for years. On the other hand, white working-class parents were bullied by those inspectors when their refractory 15-year-old daughters refused to go.

Prepare for communal violence

Dalrymple writes:

One of the objects of the bombers, instinctive rather than articulated, might be to undermine restraint, both of the state and of the population, in order to reveal to the majority of Muslims the true evil nature of the society in which they live, and force them into the camp of the extremists.

If so,

there is some hope of success. It would not take many more such bombings, perhaps, to provoke real and serious communal violence on the Indian subcontinental model. Britain teems with aggressive, violent subgroups who would be only too delighted to make pogroms a reality.

The outlook, Dalrymple points out, is

grim and without obvious solution. Surveys suggest that between 6% and 13% of British Muslims are sympathetic towards Islamic terrorists and their efforts. It is a sufficient proportion and absolute number of sympathisers to make suspicion and hostility towards Muslims by the rest of society not entirely irrational.

This, says Dalrymple,

is the tightrope that the British state and population has to walk; the sweet dream of universal cultural compatibility has been replaced by the nightmare of permanent conflict.

Islamism in Britain is not the product of Islam alone

Dalrymple notes that some British Muslims succeed in life, a fact which is interpreted backwards:

not that Muslims can succeed, but that generally they cannot, because British society is inimical to Muslims.

In coming to this conclusion, Dalrymple points out, young Muslims

would only be adopting the logic that has driven Western social policy for so long: that any difference in economic and social outcome between groups is the result of social injustice and adverse discrimination. The premises of multiculturalism do not even permit asking whether reasons internal to the groups might account for differences in outcomes.

This sociological view is peddled consistently by the poll-tax-funded British state broadcaster, which states, for example, that Muslims ‘continue to face discrimination’. Thus,

  • if more Muslims than any other group possess no educational qualifications, even though the hurdles for winning such qualifications have constantly fallen, it can only be because of discrimination—though a quarter of all medical students in Britain are of Indian subcontinental descent. It can have nothing to do with the widespread—and illegal—practice of refusing to allow girls to continue at school, which the Press scarcely mentions, and which the educational authorities rarely if ever investigate
  • if youth unemployment among Muslims is two-and-a half-times the rate among whites, it can be only because of discrimination—though youth unemployment among Hindus is  lower than among whites (and this even though many young Hindus complain of being mistaken for Muslims)

Dalrymple comments:

A constant and almost unchallenged emphasis on ‘social justice’, the negation of which is ‘discrimination’, can breed only festering embitterment. Where the definition of justice is entitlement by virtue of group existence rather than reward for individual effort, a radical overhaul of society will appear necessary to achieve such justice.

Islamism in Britain, Dalrymple emphasises, is

the product of the meeting of Islam with an entrenched native mode of thinking about social problems.