From Jordan Peterson on the sex slavery gangs of Britain,

and- though he doesn't mention it- in God knows how many places in the US and Canada:

What this directly means is that large numbers of men, drawn disproportionately from the most populous subgroup of the UK Muslim immigrant population, were actively engaged in what can only be called hate crimes, directed at the most vulnerable members of their host society — and worse: that within the networks these men organized, the crimes were regarded not as immoral but as justified, warranted by the supposed religious and cultural depravity of the girls, and of the society that produced them.

...

Not grooming, then. Not even rape. Something more brutal, efficient and planned; something motivated, furthermore, by the presumption of individual and cultural superiority, on ideological, moral — even religious — grounds.

Something akin to domination. Something akin, even more precisely, to… conquest. But let us also not forget the specific and dreadful means of domination and conquest — one so often applied on the open battlefield: rape, of the most vicious sort. Thus, a more fitting term: sexual conquest.

These then were sexual conquest gangs: organized networks for whom the bodies of the outgroup's daughters were territory to be held in contempt, taken and spoiled — the ancient tribal warfare of pillage and rape, conducted under conditions of nominal peace, against a host society too trusting, too tolerant, and finally too afraid to name what was happening.

...

And if that's not enough — and it's already more than enough — the crimes included not only the sexual sadism, exploitation and domination graphically outlined in Lowe's Inquiry, but the equally reprehensible official response: cover-up, and even prosecution of the victims. Subsequent investigations confirmed what victims and some frontline workers had reported for years: police, social services and local councils knew, and preferred not to admit, what was happening. In consequence, thousands of girls were raped, trafficked and degraded while the authorities stood by, afraid of being called racist and anxious to protect 'community relations.'

That's not negligence. That's not institutional failure. That's collusion with the worst of men — in the service of an illusory, even fraudulent multicultural peace.

And:

And what exactly are we admitting exists, if we refuse the cover-up? What are the cascading implications of the fact that sexual conquest gangs operated untrammelled and unrecognized in what was until recently an honest, secure and productive society — one where high trust was the proper order of the day?

Certainly the societal division we are constantly warned against, not least by those attempting to justify their own failure to act. Certainly the demand for justice for the victims and criminal responsibility of the perpetrators — a demand mounting rather than declining with the passage of time. Certainly the necessity of reconsidering the cherished liberal axioms that produced mass immigration from the very cultures in which such predation found its justification — and that forbade naming it once it arrived. And what does that imply for the multicultural project itself? For immigration policy going forward? For the — justified? — resurgence of nationalism?

There are yet more brutal questions waiting to be asked. How does honest admission of the problem embolden that element of the right for whom mass deportation is the most rather than the least liberal of the available options? Why should the traditional British public not conclude that a virtual state of war now exists in the country they patriotically cherish? Given that thousands of men in organized networks sadistically exploited, physically brutalized and psychologically destroyed hundreds of thousands of that country's most vulnerable citizens, justifying their predation on essentially religious grounds, and prosecuting it with a toxic combination of sex and violence?

You might remember this piece a few days ago, describing these actions as also being trying to 'properly keep the class system going'; fits in rather well for the traitors, doesn't it?
Which makes me wonder: do the people behind it actually think they can control the invaders, or do they plan on somehow buying them off?  If the latter, they're idiots.