Did you know there has been five days of riots in the immigrant areas of Stockholm? I don’t blame you if you don’t know because the British elite has kept very quiet about it. Those riots don’t, of course, suit the pro multi culti agenda of the British elite.
I listen to a good half hour of BBC output on the radio and TV per day, and far as I know they didn’t report on the riots till after there had been five days (or nights) of riots. I discovered about the riots much earlier from other sources: the Wall Street Journal and the Russian TV channel “Russia Today”.
I never thought the day would come when I’d start to consider a Russian news service more informative and reliable than the BBC.
In contrast, British news organisations HAVE REPORTED the hacking to death and beheading of a British soldier in London by two Muslims in graphic detail as from the moment the atrocity occurred. Indeed, they reported that story in such length and detail that I got seriously bored with it: I wanted to be told what was going on in the rest of the world - and not just in Stockholm. But the lunatic behaviour of two Muslims in London doesn’t seriously call into question the alleged wonders of multiculturalism or Islam because one cannot make generalisations about a religion just from the behaviour of two people. So our British PC news outlets are happy enough to report THAT STORY.
Stockholm is different: hundreds of immigrants / Muslims were involved, so there one CAN MAKE generalisations. So you can see why the politically correct want to keep quite about that, can’t you?
Another left of centre and pro Muslim news outlet is the Guardian newspaper, which after a few days of riots DID REPORT the story (in a short article at the bottom of an inside page: “Fourth day of riots in Stockholm”). But – and you’ll be amazed to hear this – there was no mention of immigrants. According to The Guardian, those responsible were “youths”. Swedish youths? Danish youths? Norwegian youths? Youths from Lapland?
Well you don’t even need to be told the answer to that, do you?
Incidentally, if you think the word "bigot" in the above title is a bit strong, my reason for using the word is that it is normal practice by the politically correct to describe anyone who disagrees with them as a bigot (or racist, or xenophobe, etc). So if the politically correct want strong language, I'm up for that, though I'd prefer more moderate language.