Who Speaks for the Children?
Who Speaks for the Children?
Immigration, Anti-White Hate, and the Southport UK Massacre
By: A Mother of British Children
A friend who wishes to remain anonymous sent this to me, and requested that I publish it under the byline A Mother of British Children. Our English friends are, I think, wise to act with circumspection, given that the island’s traitor government shows every sign that it is about to turn the dial up to 11 on electronic tyranny.
But just as they are wise to be cautious, they are also right to be outraged. - JC
We think of ideologies as nebulous ideas that exist in the minds of idle intellectuals, but rarely do we stop to consider the teeth they have in the real, physical world ... until an event like the Southport UK massacre on Monday, July 29th reminds us.
The Guardian had this to say about the incident:
A 17-year-old boy has been charged with murder and attempted murder after 13 people, including 11 children, were stabbed at a dance class in Southport – while violence has flared in Manchester following on from rioting elsewhere sparked by disinformation about the suspect.
...
Alice Dasilva Aguiar, nine, Bebe King, six, and Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven, were fatally stabbed, while five children remain in critical condition after they were attacked while taking part in a dance and yoga class on Monday morning. Two adults, who were injured trying to protect the children, were also in a critical condition.
The suspect, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was arrested on Monday.
The responses to the slaughter from both mainstream British media, liberal commentators, and ordinary people remind us that there is a serious divide between the two irreconcilable worlds inhabited by people today. One silver lining of tragedy is always this: that it makes it clear where everyone’s loyalties truly lie.
The Guardian for example calls the murderer a “boy” even though a 17-year-old is physically a grown man, and is in no way comparable to a child. Pictures are consistently shared of the murderer as a child in order to somehow increase sympathy for the monster. Their thinly veiled rhetorical ploy at making the murderer seem as much a child as the ones he slaughtered, are not merely in bad taste, but they make us question why would a sane person want to sympathize with a murderer in this way? Further investigation reveals that the murderer was legally a British man, yes, but also a Rwandan immigrant named Axel Rudakubana. He was suspended in school for brandishing a knife at school and stating “this country needs a genocide”. He is the child of parents whom we can impute, emigrated Rwanda due to the genocide. There is mounting evidence that the murder was racially motivated, as a hatred for whites. But whether or not it was, the response from the British media and liberal upper middle class, reveals that because the victims were native British white girls, they do not have any right to sympathy. At some point we must admit that the anti-white narrative consistently taught in every mainstream British institution has made the lives of innocent children expendable simply because they are white.
On Violence
A violent riot broke out in Manchester subsequent to the news of the murder in which people pelted and assaulted the police with bricks and rocks. On Wednesday July 31st, crowds of protestors marched on Downing street in London throwing flares and shouting “Rule Britannia”, “save our kids” and “stop the boats”. Angry liberals and news sources described these demonstrations as dangerous far-right extremists “weaponizing the tragic deaths of those innocent children”. The real story the institution will not report, is that this murder was not a random isolated incident. It is but one incident in an endless pattern of mass violence that has begun to plague not only the UK, but all of Europe over the last 5-10 years. To describe a population getting angry that their children are being murdered with impunity while the government does nothing to prevent it as “weaponizing”, is a crass and hideous way to frame justified outrage.
Ordinary people do not riot and risk arrest for no reason. In fact, it would be foolish to do so because it can ruin your life, especially when the cause is not supported by the establishment. Pro-Palestine protestors can riot, feminists can riot, pro-LGBT groups can riot, and nothing negative will ever happen to them in the Western World because they are supported by the establishment. However, if you sincerely protest against something the institutions are against, i.e. the entire purpose of protest at all, then you will face the wrath of the institutions. People get arrested, fired, expelled from schools, only when the thing they protest is against the interests of the establishment. If protesting the murder of innocent native Brits is against the establishment, we have to start questioning what the primary loyalty of the British establishment even is, if it is not the protection of their most vulnerable citizens.
Many have said that the West is “toothless” today, but that is untrue. It definitely has teeth, it’s just that its victims are innocent people, the common man who rejects his slavery and questions the power of the institution.
Influencers like Adam Rowe, a comedian, and Ana Santino, posted their utter disdain for the rioters, pretending like they are always against violence, meanwhile they completely condoned and even celebrated riots that were done in protest to the death of George Floyd in 2020, a black man who was a violent criminal and died during an arrest because of all the fentanyl in his system.
These commentators seem to be more concerned about the life of a violent criminal than they are about innocent children murdered. Why? Because they are a part of a greater institution that tells us over and over again that white lives don’t matter. A black man can be a British citizen but a white man whose grandfathers may have died in wars defending the freedom of the country, is reminded constantly he lives on “stolen land” or made to apologize for his heritage whereas others are never even taught the atrocities their ancestors most definitely committed.
These ordinary people don’t want to “weaponize the deaths of the children”. They want a government whose policies no longer get their children killed. And when democratic and civil processes are all closed to them due to a classist, corrupt, bloated bureaucracy ... they will resort to Violence. It is simply human nature.
Peaceful protest is a group-bonding, luxury activity. Serious protest is violent and ugly – and it is the only thing that can affect real change when a government is against the common man in every way. When the democratic system no longer works, and is corrupt from root to shoot, there is nothing more that can be done.
But violence has a great price. Anyone who engages in it can have any semblance of normalcy taken away from their life forever. The only thing that could compel an ordinary person to engage in an act of violence against a powerful institution is someone who has nothing more left to lose. If your own innocent children are no longer safe in your society, then truly, you have nothing more left to lose. There is nothing more they can take from you that is worth anything more than the life of your children - than the guarantee that they won’t be sent home from school in a body-bag.
On “British” Muslims
Rioters destroyed a mosque in the Southport protest in the wake of the murders. Many Muslim and non-native British immigrants online were enraged at the “islamophobia” on display with the assumptions that the murderer was Muslim, when it was found out that he was Rwandan. Despite the fact that Rudakubana was not Muslim, it is in poor taste to say the least, for British Muslims to focus on potential “islamophobia” rather than on the fact that the British people are understandably frustrated due to decades of abuse from Muslim migrants (legal and illegal) against native British children.
The violence against native British women, especially children, has been an ongoing problem in the country, to say the least. Anyone denying this is either wilfully ignorant, or malicious and wants to keep in the good graces of a racist mainstream institution that is now overtly prejudiced against white Brits. Between 2004 and 2012, hundreds of girls were raped by men of primarily Muslim background. An article from the Mail online reports this:
It is not the first official report into child sex exploitation in Rochdale - a report in 2013 found that hundreds of young girls were allowed to fall into the hands of Asian grooming gangs because police and social workers may have been scared of seeming racist. They refused to believe that race was an issue even though dozens of young, white girls were being specifically targeted and groomed for sex by older Pakistani men.
Any decent Muslim British person, with even an iota of patriotism or love for Britain, the country that likely gave their parents asylum from war, a high-crime homeland, poverty, or human rights injustices, would not respond to the murder of British children with such callousness. They would not be primarily concerned about themselves and their reputations when native British children were mindlessly slaughtered by someone. They would ask questions like, “what causes this to keep happening to white British girls?” and “how can we prevent this in the future”? They would sympathize with the protesters because they themselves gathered in droves to protest the killing of innocent children in Palestine only weeks before. They were not concerned about appearing “Anti-semitic” in that instance, even though every single ordinary Jewish person is not responsible for the killings in Palestine; just as every single British Muslim is not culpable for the rapes and murders that have disproportionately happened at British Muslim hands in the UK over the last 20 years.
In fact, many British Muslims went so far as to insinuate that these British girls deserved to be murdered because they are simply connected to the UK government which does contribute money to wars in the Middle East. This means two things 1) they do not consider themselves as connected to the United Kingdom as native Brits and 2) it is natural that native British children should pay the price for the foreign policy of the United Kingdom. If this incites “islamophobia” then it is also, only natural.
Not a single British Muslim, by the way, attended the vigil for the children who died in Southport, despite a large Muslim community residing there. Through their responses to this horrifying massacre, many British immigrants, including British Muslims, have revealed that their loyalties lie, foremost, with their own racial communities and their own “homeland”. If the United Kingdom is not their homeland, what is it to them? A hotel to be used and discarded as it pleases them? The West is a prostitute for them to use and discard as it pleases them.
Even if British Muslims, or British Indians, or British Nigerians, were not responsible for the murder of these three innocent girls, the fact that they are not standing up for them now, but are more concerned with their own reputations, reveals their loyalties are not with the United Kingdom. If someone is truly British, on a spiritual level, their primary sympathies would lie with those little girls, and hundreds of other girls like them routinely raped and murdered since mass migration to the UK began in the 1980s.
On Racism
We must realize what a breaking point has been reached in the utter lack of civic safety for the most vulnerable among us. And there is a very clear reason why, which liberals, either due to incredible ignorance or the darkest of malice, do not acknowledge. The reason is mass migration of unvetted migrants. Immigrants from across the world have been living and thriving in the United Kingdom for several generations. There are many ethnic Indians, Pakistanis, Africans, and Chinese who grew up with British culture and consider themselves, foremost, British citizens.
If the British population were sincerely racist, as it is now being claimed, then all of these people of diverse backgrounds would not be able to live in the UK so easily, would not be able to start businesses and prosper in their institutions to the level that the previous British Prime Minister was a man of Indian ethnicity. Clearly, the British are not racist toward other races. In fact, they may prove to be the least racist society to anyone who has travelled and worked elsewhere in the world, and has found that there is explicit prejudice and discrimination against outsiders. This is true of India, Japan, China, and many Middle Eastern countries. In Islamic countries especially, a Christian cannot openly practice his religion, and churches cannot be so easily built. In Britain, which is unequivocally a Christian country built by Christians, Muslims are accommodated so much so that they can build mosques, practice their religion openly, and in fact are given more deference than Christians. It is therefore not only intellectually lazy, but malicious to cast aspersions on the Brits as being “racist”.
The problems with racism are created and manufactured by the institutions. If the police and courts refuse to punish some people for crimes based on their skin colour, other people will begin to despise that group for both the crimes and the fact that it goes unpunished, and the hatred will diffuse to the greater group rather than simply the individuals. This is because, although only a few people commit the crimes, the group as a whole enjoys some impunity. This impunity also, of course, increases the crimes committed by members of the favoured group because they know they will not be punished. This in turn creates mass chaos, which allows the institutions to justify increasingly draconian laws related to surveillance, which is the end goal of this entire project of mass migration.
State Sanctioned Hatred for Whites
Immigration without assimilation is intensely dangerous. When people emigrate from their countries, especially as refugees, and especially from third world countries, they are escaping a culture that has made it unsafe for them to live there. Nevertheless, they are (knowingly or unknowingly) contaminated with the very same cultural ideas that made their homeland unlivable or unattractive for them.
Assimilation is the process of reprogramming the individual’s cultural ideologies to make them more amenable to the decent society they want to be a part of. Without cultural assimilation, they contaminate the new society with the same problems they wanted to escape “back home”. This requires a certain rate of migration that permits this kind of assimilation, and for the host country to display its values in an attractive and dignified way.
Assimilation in the UK has evidently not occurred for the last few decades. First, the rate and volume of migration has been so great that it would be impossible for new migrants to assimilate because they would be instantly surrounded only by people like themselves. They would have no model of British culture to calibrate themselves against, and no motivation to fit in with them. The UK just becomes a new version of their home village very quickly.
Second, the native culture of the British has deteriorated to such substantial degrees that any person coming from another culture would abhor any kind of assimilation. Homosexuality taught in school, sexual vulgarity in every cultural medium, divorced families, disrespect for family, disrespect for religion, are all that the outsider will understand to be “British culture”.
The British culture that built the beautiful picturesque towns, the justice system, the historic monuments and the great economy from which the immigrant profits ... forms part of a culture and heritage that cannot be easily located in the deracinated and degenerate modern Brit. This is in combination with an education system whose primary function is to teach a hatred for Traditional Western culture and to paint it as the scapegoat for everyone’s problems around the world.
Thus outsiders view the UK as an economy and passport to exploit rather than a culture and people to respect. They believe it is not only acceptable, but reasonable and right to hate British culture, even as they profit from their taxpayers. Is it then surprising that they do not have any sympathy for dead native Brits?
The culminating result is a very large migrant population that hates British people and British culture even as British people are threatened with their livelihoods to be nothing but deferential to the newcomers transforming their ancestral communities with foreign cultures and religions. The very large migrant population also holds on to violent and criminal tendencies that made their homelands so difficult for them to live in. But Britain doesn’t have a law-enforcement infrastructure to control this kind of a population, leaving native Brits exposed to the full power of third-world violence.
It is obvious then, that the native population will see a pattern of violent crime from a certain demographic and begin to form judgements of that entire demographic. It is entirely predictable that they should feel animosity toward outsiders who are not only different to them culturally and religiously, but also seem to be engaged in hostile activity against the natives on a large scale, and are largely living supported by the incredibly high tax that ordinary citizens must pay. All citizens must pay the tax, including non-white citizens, but the recent wave of refugees and migrants are being provided for entirely by tax-payer funds even as the ordinary citizen struggles in an increasingly failing economy. This paints just a brief picture of the plight of the ordinary native Brit that helps to explain the violent riots.
“Rule Britannia, Save our kids, Stop the boats”
This was the rallying cry of the protestors at Whitehall, who were called “right wing extremists”. According to legacy media and liberals, not wanting more children to die, is extremism. Identifying mass, unvetted migration as a primary cause of the dramatic increase in crime in the UK, is extremist behaviour. Wanting to be allowed to feel patriotic pride for your own country is considered extremist behaviour only if you are a native Brit – patriotism for any other country, and for any other movement is acceptable.
People are quite simple. At the most basic level, they desire safety for their children, the ability to earn a living wage, and access to food and water. These are not luxurious demands. Yet it seems that when every single one of these pillars of basic necessity are denied to the ordinary Brits, they are labelled racist for identifying one of the main policies responsible for their situation: mass migration from hostile cultures. The killer of the children in Southport was “British” likely only in name, as so many migrants are. He is not so important as the conditions that led to his committing this heinous crime. If each criminal is an individual who ought to be judged and convicted individually, how can we explain the pattern of violence by new migrants in the UK and Europe? What can be done to prevent future crimes like this?
These are the questions that should be asked. And yet no one seems to focus on them. Even the rioters shouting “deport them all” understand they are impotent in some crucial way. The violence will continue, until people can understand that their children are safe being dropped off to school, living in their towns, going about their lives. Safe societies are easy to destroy, and difficult to build. It is tragic to me that so many liberals, so concerned about not appearing “racist”, are willing to close their eyes to a problem that will continue to claim innocent lives, because it serves their careers with the institution.
Who speaks for the children? Apparently only this dangerous group labelled as “far right extremists”. Being on the side of innocent children today is a dangerous act because the institution does not support it. It would prefer that these attacks keep happening again and again and again, while they live in their high security cages, insulated from the violence and chaos their policies bring upon the ordinary people of the United Kingdom. But a mother cannot close her eyes to these realities. A mother cannot see innocent children slaughtered, and turn the other cheek. Something must be done. And perhaps the first thing to be done, is to tell the truth.
Source: Postcards from Barsoom
Comments
Post a Comment