When you’re studying the behaviour of animals, it’s pointless to look for motives like “truth-seeking” and “compassion.” Animals aren’t interested in discovering the truth and Making the World a Better Place. They’re interested in survival — in eating and not being eaten.
“All white women are only good for one thing…”
Something similar applies when you’re studying the behaviour of liberals. Whatever they might claim, they’re not interested in truth or world-improvement: they’re interested in power — in dominating and not being dominated. As I pointed out in “The Silent Sisterhood,” feminists prefer to ignore sex-crimes committed by non-White men, because such crimes contradict their insistence on the Omnipotent Evil of the Stale Pale Male. Now more proof of feminist double-standards has arrived, because another Muslim rape-gang has hit the headlines in Brave New Britain.
Newcastle, in north-east England, was the vibro-centre this time. Seventeen Muslim men from “backgrounds” of dazzling diversity — “Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Indian, Iraqi, Iranian and Turkish” — have been found guilty of the “rape and human trafficking” of more than 200 “vulnerable women and girls.” One of those men, Badrul Hussain, is reported to have espoused a shockingly toxic mixture of racism, misogyny and male supremacism. His alleged words, addressed to a White female ticket-inspector, should have set feminist keyboards rattling right around the world. They went like this: “All white women are only good for one thing. For men like me to fuck and use like trash. That’s all women like you are worth.”
“Horrific, yet tragically familiar…”
It’s hard to imagine a clearer expression of Patriarchal Toxicity or a more unrepentant celebration of Rape Culture. Those words were alleged by the ticket-inspector at one of the four trials required to deal with the large gang and its many offences. Have feminists followed their own principles and believed a female witness without question? Have they been condemning Hussain’s Hate ever since it first met their appalled gaze?
In fact, they’ve ignored it. After the ludicrously implausible “gang-rape on broken glass” allegations at the University of Virginia in 2014, the feminist Jessica Valenti insisted at the Guardian that “Rolling Stone’s rape story is about a person — and I believe her.”
Jessica and her “This Week in Patriarchy” column haven’t bothered with Hussein’s Hate and the years of real, fully proven rape in Newcastle. Nor has the rape-fest been discussed in the Guardian’s special sections for “Women” and “Rape and Sexual Assault.” After all, the U-VA allegations were directed at Stale Pale Males. The proven rapists in Newcastle are Males of Vibrancy. It makes all the difference.
But the Guardian couldn’t ignore what happened in Newcastle, because it has been reported too widely elsewhere. As the Feminist of Color Sonia Sodha lamented, “It’s a horrific, yet tragically familiar, story that has played itself out in every corner of the country, from Rotherham and Rochdale to Oxford and Bristol.”
Hand-wringing vs honesty
Can you feel vibrant Sonia’s concern and compassion for the non-vibrant victims in all those places? I hope so: as “chief leader writer at the Observer,” the Sunday version of the Guardian, she is an expert at hand-wringing and virtue-signalling.
But I suggest she isn’t so good at logic and honesty. The headline to her piece ran like this: “Victims of child abuse gangs are the first to suffer — and the last to get our attention.” But why have the victims been ignored for so long? The Labour MP Ann Cryer could have helped Sonia answer that question. When Cryer learned “almost 15 years” ago that Muslim rape-gangs were at work in her heavily enriched constituency in Yorkshire, she tried to publicize what was going on:
Once I had overcome my initial disbelief that large-scale paedophile abuse was the norm for a section of the community — in some parts of Britain, it went back to the Eighties [or the Sixties?], when it was first reported to police — and that it was an open secret, I took my concerns to West Yorkshire police and social services. I expected they would have a hard time believing the claims — but I didn’t think I’d be flatly ignored by everyone. It was as if this crime was so toxic, no one could acknowledge its existence. (How I was branded a racist — for trying to save girls from their vile abusers, The Daily Mail, 11th August 2017)
But surely Britain’s foremost progressive and feminist newspaper rushed to join her campaign against the vile abuse of “vulnerable women and girls”? Unfortunately not. Cryer goes on to say this: “I couldn’t get The Guardian interested. Its reporters seemed paralysed by political correctness.”
Racism and religious hate
Some Guardian-readers were far from paralysed: they were among those who attacked Cryer for campaigning against the rape-gangs and against “forced marriages” among Muslims: “When I wasn’t being openly accused of racism and religious hate — my name was on the website Islamophobia Watch — I was painted as someone who didn’t understand Asian culture.” As Sonia Sodha was wringing her hands about victims being ignored, did she mention the Guardian’s prolonged refusal to help Ann Cryer and other whistle-blowers? Did she mention that Labour councils full of Guardian-readers presided over the horrors in Rotherham and Rochdale?
Of course not. She couldn’t discuss the Guardian’s complicity in the crimes, let alone apologize for it, because admitting error isn’t good for those seeking to win and retain power. The victims were ignored because the authorities were applying Guardianista principles of “anti-racism” and “diversity.” Sonia Sodha condemns behaviour that her own newspaper has supported for decades:
Thanks to the many independent reports into child sexual abuse in various places, we know that the disgustingly prejudiced attitudes towards the vulnerable girls who are abused are not limited to the perpetrators of these heinous crimes. In Rotherham, Alexis Jay’s report reveals police officers believed children as young as 11 capable of having consensual sex with groups of men three times their age. The police arrested young girls found in the company of older men in strange flats for drunk-and-disorderly behaviour, leaving the perpetrators free to continue their abuse. In Rochdale, three council employees expressed the view that the victims were “making choices”, as if children forced into sex by adults can be anything other than victims of abuse. (Victims of child abuse gangs are the first to suffer — and the last to get our attention, The Guardian, 10th August 2017)
The police in Labour-controlled Rotherham and the council employees in Labour-controlled Rochdale were being “anti-racist” and “sex-positive.” They were celebrating diversity, facilitating inter-communal outreach, and rejecting hate-filled stereotypes about predatory non-White males preying on vulnerable White females. In short, they were doing exactly what the Guardian wanted them to. Their “disgustingly prejudiced attitudes” were the result of decades of propaganda from the Guardian, BBC and other liberal outlets.
Sonia Sodha obviously couldn’t admit this. Nor could she admit other important things. She also wrung her hands about the “prejudiced attitudes” of the perpetrators, but she left those attitudes unexplored and didn’t mention Badrul Hussain’s Patriarchal Toxicity: “All white women are only good for one thing. For men like me to fuck and use like trash.” Badrul Hussain seemed to think that “race issues” were central to his offending, but what does he know? Sonia Sodha put race in its proper place: “by endlessly raking over this second-order question — is race or religion a factor? — we never seem to make any progress on the first-order issue: how do we prevent this from happening again?”
Octopuses squirt ink when they want to evade predators. Liberals squirt ink when they want to evade hate-facts. And that’s exactly what Sonia was doing in her waffle about “second-order questions” and “first-order issues.” Is the role of mosquitoes and protozoa a “second-order question” in the “first-order issue” of preventing malaria? Of course not. Prevention depends on understanding causes. But Sonia Sodha and her fellow liberals can’t admit the causes at work in Newcastle. That’s why they squirt ink and waffle:
We also need a better understanding of who perpetrates these crimes. In some places, it has predominantly been men of Pakistani origin, but in Bristol, the abusers were predominantly Somali; in Peterborough, they were also of Czech and Slovak Roma and Kurdish backgrounds. A report for the children’s commissioner in 2012 found that around a third of perpetrators were white. … In Newcastle, most of the perpetrators were second-generation immigrants, which may tell us as much about our school system as the communities and families in which they grew up.
Newcastle is still majority White. If the “school system” were to blame, White offenders would outnumber non-White offenders. They don’t. And they don’t form rape-gangs. Sonia Sodha had already noted that, on official statistics, White British men are hugely under-represented and vibrant non-British men are hugely over-represented. And that’s after decades during which vibrant non-British men have been allowed to offend with impunity, thanks to “anti-racism” and other causes dear to the Guardian’s heart.
Our “understanding” of the rape-gangs is already more than adequate. We could have prevented them altogether by not allowing mass immigration from the Third World. We can prevent them getting worse in future by banning Third-World immigration.
But no more Third-World immigration would mean no more guaranteed votes for the Rainbow Alliance that unites feminists and Muslims in the fight to topple the Stale Pale Male. A ban would help “vulnerable women and girls,” but would it help liberals consolidate and increase their power? That’s the only question that matters to the Guardian. When liberals are faced with vibrant sex-crimes, their ideal is to ignore them and punish anyone who speaks out. When they can’t do that, they squirt ink and obfuscate. Happily for them, they did manage to apply the second half of their ideal after the Newcastle rape-gang hit the headlines. Sarah Champion, the Labour MP for Rotherham, was forced to resign after she published a “racist” and “Islamophobic” article in the Sun. The vibrant logician Areeq Chowdhury responded to her article like this:
Sarah Champion MP, I think you’re racist. There. I said it. Does that make me politically correct? Or am I just prepared to call out this horrifying problem for what it is?
If you think I am being over the top, have a quick read of the column in the Sun written by Labour’s Shadow Equalities Minister, Sarah Champion. It’s entitled “British Pakistani men ARE raping and exploiting white girls… and it’s time we faced up to it.” She inexplicably opens with the line “Britain has a problem with British Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girls. There. I said it. Does that make me a racist? Or am I just prepared to call out this horrifying problem for what it is?”
Well to answer what I’m sure was a rhetorical question Sarah, yes, it does make you a racist. … (Sarah Champion, I Think You’re Racist. There. I Said It., The Huffington Post, 14th August 2017)
Chowdhury then went on to explain why Sarah Champion was a racist. By claiming that there was “a problem with British Pakistani men,” she was, according to him, claiming that “child sexual exploitation is a problem unique to the British Pakistani community.” No, she was claiming that “British Pakistani men” are overrepresented, which is clearly the case—indeed they vastly overrepresented. She didn’t say their overrepresentation was caused by their race: she merely stated a statistical fact.
Vibrantia ex nihilo
Alas for her, “Reality is Racist.” Chowdhury wanted her punished for speaking the truth and she has been. As the Spectator noted: “Sarah Champion’s resignation over Muslim comments bodes ill for state of debate in Labour. … [O]ther Labour MPs are now unlikely to make a similar point again.” Champion’s resignation is a perfect example of a central liberal principle at work: “Don’t debate — defenestrate!” Minorities must be worshipped, never criticized. For decades liberals have ignored the vibrancy of rape-gangs “in every corner of the country”; now that they can no longer do so, they seek to minimize that vibrancy.
But when it suits them, they will manufacture vibrancy out of nothing. As part of its relentless campaign against the White British and their right to a homeland, the BBC created a “schools video” that showed “Life in Roman Britain as seen through the eyes of a typical family nearly 2000 years ago.” The parents in this typical family are a “high-ranking black Roman soldier” and his White wife. There is no evidence that anyone of high rank in Roman Britain was Black, let alone that such a family was “typical.” The BBC was conjuring vibrancy ex nihilo. When the alt-right and others criticized the video, a fatuous classical historian called Mary Beard hastened to the BBC’s defence: “One thing is for sure, the Roman empire, Britain included, was culturally and ethnically diverse, from the Syrians in Bath to Quintus Lollius Urbicus, the Ethiopian who met Septimius Severus on Hadrian’s Wall, and the wonderful couple from South Shields, Barates and Queenie [Regina], he from Palmyra, she an Essex girl. There is no doubt about that.”
She waffled on: “Even in the case of Septimius Severus, the first Roman emperor from Africa [Libya], we don’t actually know the colour of his skin, how far he was ‘native’, how far the descendent of Italian settler[s]. The same goes for Quintus Lollius Urbicus, often claimed to be Berber, which he may well have been, but it isn’t certain.” Professor Beard is perfectly correct: we don’t know whether Severus and Urbicus were Black, because no record of their skin-colour has come down to us. Similarly, we don’t know whether Severus and Urbicus had prehensile tails or could clear tall buildings in a single bound. History is silent on these topics too.
But we can legitimately infer something from the silence and from the sharp racial distinction existing today between the Arabs and Berbers of northern Africa and the true Blacks of sub-Saharan Africa. The BBC’s “typical family” was nothing of the kind, as the BBC itself admitted by silently altering the text that introduces the video. The introduction now reads: “Life in Roman Britain as seen through the eyes of one family nearly 2000 years ago” (my emphasis). In pursuit of power, liberals will minimize vibrancy here, maximize vibrancy there. The vibrancy of non-White rape-gangs is minimized; the vibrancy of Roman Britain is maximized — indeed, manufactured from nothing.
Diversity = rape + death + misery
But Mary Beard and other fans of the BBC’s propaganda didn’t comment on one glaring historical fact: Diversity in Roman Britain was the result of conquest and outside control. It was imposed on the native British Celts entirely against their will and strongly to their detriment:
Boudica (alternative spelling: Boudicca, also known as Boadicea) (d. AD 60 or 61) was a queen of the British Iceni tribe who led an uprising against the occupying forces of the Roman Empire. Boudica’s husband Prasutagus ruled as a nominally independent ally of Rome and left his kingdom jointly to his daughters and the Roman emperor in his will. However, when he died his will was ignored, and the kingdom was annexed. Boudica was flogged, her daughters raped, and Roman financiers called in their loans. (Boudica at Infogalactic)
What happened next is still visible beneath the streets of London in a layer of soot. Boudica led an army to sack and burn what was then the Roman capital, Londinium, before her non-vibrant rebellion was brutally suppressed by the vibrant Romans. Diversity meant rape, death and misery “nearly 2000 years ago.” It means the same today.
And unlike the Romans, today’s invaders do not bring an advanced civilization with them. Newcastle is the largest city in north-east England, which was once a high centre of Christendom. Stale pale males like the Venerable Bede used the Roman legacy of literacy and architecture to create glories like the Lindisfarne Gospels and Durham Cathedral. Today Newcastle is enriched with Third-World culture instead. So are Rotherham and Cologne. That’s why they’re now remarkable for rape and misogyny, not for rood-screens and the Magnificat.
Liberals promised paradise and have delivered dystopia. Mass immigration is a curse, not a blessing, and one day the native British will remove the curse. Boudica’s rebellion failed because the Romans held all the strategic advantages and were better-organized and better-equipped. That will not be the case when the native British rise once more against a hostile elite and the alien invasion it has overseen.