Monday, December 21, 2015

Douglas Murray: The Elites Are In Denial, Again

My only quibble with this incredible essay is the word 'again'.

I would say that they are 'still' in denial.

Read the whole thing. 

It's a haunting and frightening picture of where we are at, as a society, in terms of recognizing and understanding the threats that are right in front of our very eyes.

I must say, Murray's essay is particularly poignant and painful to read now, given his recent admission that for security reasons, he can no longer give advance notice of his public appearances, for "security reasons" (i.e threats from jihadists).

Douglas Murray: The Establishment Is In Denial, Again


"Almost a decade ago Martin Amis asked the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, whether he and other European leaders ever discussed the issue of growing Muslim demographics in Europe."'

It’s a subterranean conversation,” was Blair’s response.

"But even subterranean conversations have a habit of occasionally breaking above the surface."

"Two years ago, in the pages of the Guardian, some of those fears made a rare such break. The private views of a number of senior figures at the Ministry of Defence were leaked to the left-wing paper. These expressed serious concern that “in an increasingly multicultural Britain” and “an increasingly diverse nation” there was a growing “resistance” to seeing British troops deployed, particularly in countries “from which UK citizens, or their families, once came”. British involvement in the Middle East and elsewhere was, in other words, becoming impossible because of what was happening demographically at home in the UK."

"Whenever that key issue of Muslim demographics does bubble up in our country it is always shut down with the same fervour and pique. Whenever it is reported that Mohammed was the most popular name for new-born British boys each year the story is dismissed on some technicality. Too many variants of the name were included or not enough variants was usually the mask for the real response which was, “Shut up.” 

(It's so often about the "shut up". It's still "shut up" even if it's said with a nice, proper, British accent.)

"When, in 2015, Mohammed became unarguably the most popular boy’s name in Britain the only acceptable response suddenly turned into: “So what. That’s cool.” But underneath this the public, like the present generation of politicians, knows that it is not entirely cool. Or at least not something without significant ramifications."

The ramifications are micro and macro.

Douglas Murray is not a free man in Britain any more.

His crime, punishable by death, under sharia, is being a free man, and thinking that he has the right to speak freely about anything, including Islam, without fear of being harmed. Not having that freedom, as of this year, is a rather "significant ramification" of his life, to say the least.

Voluntary, supine reductions in one's personal liberty are just the start.

When individuals give up their "small" freedoms without a fight, to be nice, to get along, to accommodate, societies quickly and seamlessly head toward being sharia-compliant lands of "significant ramifications", all for your own good of course-for "security reasons", don't you know?

But can't we talk about it? No, we can't. 

The introduction of voluntary sharia-compliance combined with large-scale Muslim immigration to the West (hijrah) is actually a nuclear-scale ramification to Western societies.

It's demographic suicide, actually. 

More from Murray, and I think here he hits on one of the main points and of course it is the junction where fear meets cowardice and denial: 

"Far more energy is expended refuting the story than in addressing a legitimate problem."

"Because, although one in five British Muslims don’t sympathise with IS, quite a number clearly do. But this is a pattern. After last January’s terror attacks the attention of European publics and governments turned for a week by a claim about “no-go zones” made by a Fox News guest expert. So much time was spent ridiculing Fox News that nobody had much time to consider whether Europe did have no-go zones. We learned again in November that it did — in France, Belgium, Sweden and elsewhere across Europe. But these are not the stories we want to hear. And so we find new ones."

Murray observes a particular, obscene trend that I have pointed out here many times as well. 

Before the corpses of the victims of Muslim terror are even cold, and before the victims are even buried, we dhimmis must focus our attention on the real victims-the Muslims.

We are conditioned to reflexively seek out and find the "silver lining" and universally hashtag our momentous stupidity, vanity and wishful thinking. And if there is no "silver lining" then truth be dammed, we will just make stuff up. 

I hate to break it to you all: some things have no "silver lining". Not ever. Some things are so bad, that there is just nothing good about them. Understanding that truth is what separates the mice from the men, and the political left from reality. 


"So after every terrorist attack now we learn of a “good news” story. After the attack on a café in Sydney a year ago the hashtag #illridewithyou became the good news story — the result of a story of a Muslim Australian woman on public transport allegedly removing her headscarf in fear after the attack. Australians tweeted “I’ll ride with you” to show that they would protect all of Australia’s Muslims from the other Australians who would otherwise brutalise them. The story of the woman taking off her headscarf turned out to be made up. Nevertheless, thousands of Australians tweeted “I’ll ride with you” and so the murder of, among others, café owner Tori Johnson (made to kneel on the floor and then shot in the back of the head) had a happy ending."

Please also note that disgracefully, on the one-year anniversary of the attack, Sydney's mayor is saying NO TERRORISM OR ISLAM TO SEE HERE.

Shame on her.


"Worst was in the wake of November’s atrocity in Paris when the story went around from the Wall Street Journal to the Huffington Post and the Daily Mail that one of the suicide bombers at the Stade de France football stadium had been stopped and turned away by a Muslim security guard called Zouheir."

"Except that it turned out — as the BBC was unusual in being good enough to concede — that the tale was fabricated. There was a guard in the stadium of unknown religion called Zouheir but he had been elsewhere on the night and had not seen any bombers. He had relayed part of a colleague’s story to a reporter."

"Why had this all become about him? For the simple reason that people wanted it to be."

"The point is that all these things are varieties of self-distraction. They are things we have set up to stop us coming to the conclusions based on the evidence before us."

So who do you believe? The silver lining hashtag fantasists, or your own lying eyes?

Will you take the side of "shut up", "for security reasons", slide willingly into the new Western world, replete with its significant ramifications or will you fight?