What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.


What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

We will not recognize our danger

The Rotherham child abuse scandal has become news again after a report was recently released giving sordid details of extortion (against the girl victims and their families) and the complicity of police. How bad was it? It was so bad that fathers were arrested for going to homes where their daughters--one assumes, their minor daughters--were being abused and trying to get their daughters out. Meanwhile, the police ignored the appalling crimes of the rapists and traffickers out of fear of being thought racist.

One home office researcher into the horrific actions of these Muslims reports that she was told never again to refer to "Asian men" and that she was made to undergo a two-day diversity course as punishment for her politically incorrect findings.

When one recalls that making racist statements is illegal in Britain and that police investigate it as a crime, the whole thing takes on a new complexion. Police were at least psychologically hampered and corrupted in investigating rape and trafficking by the fact that they might be committing a crime themselves if they said the wrong thing in the course of their investigations or prosecution.

This article points out the role of "Asian" (Pakistani Muslim) culture and corruption. The perpetrators were aided and abetted by local politicians elected from within the Muslim community.

That all of this starkly illuminates the problems with Muslim immigration should be obvious, but it is doubtful that anyone in a position to do anything, either in Britain or in the U.S., will take the hint. After all, even among many conservatives in the U.S., it's all right to wring one's hands about the bad behavior of Muslim immigrant communities--their suppression of free speech, their imposition of what is in practice sharia, their bad treatment of women--but not okay to question whether such enclaves should be allowed to form by Muslim immigration in the first place.

I have said elsewhere that the real problem with laws against the use of sharia (even if they were permitted by the courts) is that they will act as a kind of inoculation, making conservatives think that they have taken care of problems that are really not well taken care of by statutory means at all. These problems, rather, arise from the application of law, from the decisions of child welfare workers and police, and from decisions to prosecute or not prosecute.

Here I said,

Sharia is multifaceted and multidimensional. It's a much harder sell to talk about lots of Muslims not on-board with sharia. Functional sharia will as a matter of course result from the existence of large Muslim communities in the U.S. And judicial and police deference to sharia will, does, and can take the form of applying the law selectively, prosecutorial discretion in refusing to prosecute Muslims, designating crimes as accidents, designating non-crimes by uppity Christians as "disturbing the peace," refusing properly to police Muslim areas and protect Christians, and so on and so forth--all of which are virtually impossible to root out by any single or comprehensive legal approach. [snip]

[I]t seems to me that only comprehensive anti-Muslim immigration reform can stem the tide of sharia, specifically. Jihad, too, but sharia even more, because you just really cannot prosecute someone for, say, voting for Police Chief Haddad in Dearborn! Nor can you prosecute the Florida police department for negligence in the case of the death of this girl, even if they really were negligent. You have to stop the development of powerful, influential, Muslim communities.

And here,

It would be completely incorrect to believe that we can continue to allow Muslim enclaves to form in America and then counter the negative consequences of doing so with creative new laws. Moreover, let's remember: If judges are determined to be lawless and to defer to Muslim sensibilities, they will find ways of doing so. The New Jersey judge should have faced impeachment for such an outrageous ruling, but I'd be astonished if any such thing happened. An anti-sharia law could have made things brisker at the appeals level and is a good first move, but the problem we face with sharia is a problem all too much like corruption--only an ideological rather than a monetary corruption. And as everyone knows, corruption is as hard to root out of a legal and enforcement system as dandelions in a yard.

These comments might have been made with the Rotherham case in mind, but of course they weren't. They simply anticipated something like it by looking at other cases and at the way that local politics, law enforcement, and judicial and prosecutorial discretion actually work.

It's worse in Britain than it is here, I think, but how much worse? Can we really be sure that something like Rotherham's coverup of child prostitution would not happen in Dearborn, MI, or in one of the Somali enclaves in Minnesota?

Meanwhile, we have this silly case in Vermont of a restaurant that hastily removed a sign advertising bacon. A Muslim woman complained that it offended her. You can't make this stuff up. Dennis Prager beautifully skewers everyone involved.

It's important to realize in a case like that what is at stake: When Americans and other Westerners voluntarily behave like dhimmis, we legitimize dhimmitude. As it becomes accepted that there really is something offensive about a sign advertising bacon (for example) and that people really should take it down, we change our culture. Even if we never get to the point--and can we say with confidence that we never will?--where everything deemed offensive to Muslim sensibilities is outlawed, we change who we are. We chip away further at the very existence of any kind of remaining Western culture with an oeuvre of its own. We make our public culture infinitely malleable by the whims of designated victim groups.

It does not take a great stretch of the imagination to see a connection between this Western cultural self-immolation, on the one hand, and the rape of girls in Rotherham under the noses of the police, on the other.

Comments (14)

Ugh. What a horrid, disgusting mess. You don't have to call Asian men "Asian" to prosecute them for violating laws against sex crimes. You just have to follow the laws, and the laws aren't written differently for Asians as for non-Asians. For that matter, rape is a crime in Islamic countries too, but of course there the girls' fathers might have just killed the offenders outright.

Well, actually, you do. Because if you are going to bring charges, you have to have a description of the perpetrator as given by the victim or a witness. This is all the more important in the case of a gang rape where the girl may not have detailed descriptions of all of the evil men who raped her.

Moreover, when you have an on-going pattern of this type, the police have to get some sort of a plan for catching and stopping the on-going activities, and that requires taking all information into account, including the cultural, religious, and ethnic background that lies behind the activities. In essence, this was a kind of Pakistani Muslim mafia. Just as it would hinder investigation into and breaking an Italian mafia to refuse to refer to them as Italian and not to take into account the familial and cultural, clannish factors that are shielding and motivating them, so here.

There was definitely also a racial and religious angle to this. The girls were considered fair game for these gangs because they were _not_ of their own culture. To say that "this would be illegal in Muslim countries" is not very enlightening. Filipino maids are horribly abused in Saudi Arabia by their masters, who enjoy immunity in a corrupt system. In Islam, women are often spoken of as being to blame for being raped and in Muslim countries are sometimes lashed or stoned for having been raped, even gang raped. Sexual activity with minors is also normalized in Islam. In Morocco, impoverished parents sell their daughters as young as eight or nine to "husbands." It is no accident that these things occurred in Muslim enclaves in England.

Yes, Lydia, I agree that in order to be fully successful in dealing with this once it got completely underway as an in-place subculture, the authorities needed to do more than simply prosecute an individual man. But that's not my point. My point is that even to supra-race conscious liberals, they can employ the law to prosecute a violator simply as a violator, not as an Asian violator - if they have the will to do so. There is nothing about the law that REQUIRES them to turn a blind eye.

The girls were considered fair game for these gangs because they were _not_ of their own culture. To say that "this would be illegal in Muslim countries" is not very enlightening. Filipino maids are horribly abused in Saudi Arabia by their masters, who enjoy immunity in a corrupt system. In Islam, women are often spoken of as being to blame for being raped and in Muslim countries are sometimes lashed or stoned for having been raped, even gang raped.

Too true. Here is a good explanation of an apparently STANDARD view of Muslims about women and rape:


Apparently, to them there's "rape" and then there's "real" rape. Or something. They think that women should stay at home and not be out in public, and if they do they are inviting problems. But even in that repressive a culture, there is still a crime of rape and it is still punishable - if it is witnessed by 4 males for evidence!!! Well, that's a bit of a puzzler, isn't it?

The real problem is that the Muslim religion simply doesn't expect men to learn to control themselves interiorly, and this means that they cannot live in a non-Muslim culture.

The reason we could say that the law doesn't require them to turn a blind eye is because giving a factual description of the perpetrators as "a gang of Asian men" in the course of a police investigation is not, to any sane person, "hate speech." So, too, if a group of social workers have a pow-wow in which they say, "Okay, we've got a problem in Rotherham. Gangs of Asian men are trafficking young girls. What are we going to do about it?" That isn't hate speech, and it's necessary speech to identify the problem. But then again, a country that has "speech inciting racial hatred" as a crime in the first place is not a country where such laws are going to be enforced by sane people. After all, if you think about it, I suppose that if a police report says, "The victim says that she was raped by a gang of Asian men" that might indeed incite racial ill-will in someone who reads it, right? Or what about in that group of social workers. How are they likely to _feel_ about Pakistanis if they talk honestly among themselves, using factual statements, about the problem they face in a town in Yorkshire? Might they feel less racially happy and benevolent and neutral than they did prior to the conversation?

So where you have an actual law against causing bad feelings against racial groups, that does have somewhat of a chilling effect on law enforcement.

Mass hangings in the Rotherham town square seems appropriate. But it's only a fantasy about a country that can't bring itself to hang anyone. Better to aid and abet the eradication of its own culture. Rule Britainistan!

I am beginning to see the appeal of Islam to young American males: strict physical demands (prayer 5 times a day on your knees, fasting) in exchange for releasing the inner beast with divine approval to rape and pillage. Compared to the effete progressivism of 21st Century America (which constantly derides them), it would be a miracle if Islam doesn't conquer by 2030.

Well, not all young men want to rape girls, C. Matt. I'd even say most do not. A robust concept of the fallen nature of man does not have to be quite that cynical.

Mass hangings in the Rotherham town square seems appropriate. But it's only a fantasy about a country that can't bring itself to hang anyone. Better to aid and abet the eradication of its own culture. Rule Britainistan!

Let us not forget that the average Briton was willing to give up their weapons when their government came for them. That right there was the moment when it became obvious that British men had effectively handed over their balls to the state.

What is even more appalling is that Cameron's government apparently has the authority to sack all of the officials involved--and won't! Farage should be unapologetically be going to Tory voters calling the Cameron government a bunch of child rapist-enabling scum.

What would Winston Churchhill say if he saw what his beloved England has become? The Old Lion would have a heart attack.

What would happen to Daniel Craig's James Bond if he were to forcibly stop these gang-raping child-molesting Pakistani Muslims? Would he get prosecuted and thrown into jail for doing what was right? Are there any SAS folks who can say "Bollocks to the Muslims. And bollocks to our own government. And bollocks to wimpy PC liberals. We are going to stop these gang-raping Pakistani Muslims from hurting our girls and women, and whoever protests, can bloody well stuff it!"

One thing that always catches my attention is how few liberals we find commenting in these threads. I guess some racist, anti-"Asian" cat has gotten their tongues.

Rule Britainistan!

I'm pretty sure the name will be the Emirate of al-Bion ;)

Someone ought to delete the above comment. It's an advertisement for a chain of human slaughterhouses.

Thanks Bill, I got rid of it.

For those who are puzzled, Bill is not referring to Ilion's comment, but a spam comment by a different entity altogether.

Post a comment

Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.