#Pakistani Rape Gangs of Britain

[msclaritea]

Parents who attempted to rescue their children were arrested when the police arrived. ~Sam Ashworth-Hayes

Britain's apparent integration success turns out to be based on a willingness to simply ignore the catastrophic failures. ~ Sam Ashworth-Hayes

GMP detectives at Burnham's inquiry stated in no uncertain terms that "we were told to try and get other ethnicities" as it became apparent groomers were predominantly South Asian. Senior officers haven't changed; Patel's orders to record predator ethnicity were flatly ignored. ~ John Montgomery

GROOMING TRIAL: Hecklers Called Prosecutors 'Slags' and 'Hoped They Would Be Raped'

Let this sink in. While 1000s of British women and children were being targeted by South Asians Muslims, for decades, the British media and government publicly celebrated Crossdressers. The New Women. We've been so flooded with this abomination, that the information about the widespread terror and assault of an entire country was suppressed.

The British Police, filled with fellow countrymen just let it happen; allowed their own people to be destroyed. Britain has no spine.

[ethiack]

Douglas Murray on grooming gangs, Tommy Robinson and what’s wrong with Britain

Douglas Murray, Spectator columnist, joins Americano host and Spectator deputy editor Freddy Gray. This week, Home Office Minister Jess Phillips rejected Oldham Council’s request for a government-led inquiry into the horrific scandal of grooming gangs in dozens of UK cities. Her decision has led to real backlash – with X owner Elon Musk calling for safeguarding minister Jess Phillips to be jailed, and for the King to dissolve parliament. Have politicians underestimated the strength of public feeling in the UK and the US? They also discuss the Southport riots, and ask why some politicians are unwilling to confront societal problems in the name of political correctness.

[haveuevermetme]

twitter makes my blood boil. i feel like i live in a psyop.

i see so many MEN posting angry tweets about that case with pakistani grooming (rape) gangs in britain, they condemn british government and british police, they ask everyone how could this happen, how could police do nothing about it. it almost seems like a completely normal reaction to these news, what other emotions you could have except horror and anger, right? the only thing, men still slip. they write their posts and they say “the most horrible thing in all this is not the rapes, but police inaction”. oh really, the most horrible thing about rape is not rape but police caring about certain men’s feelings more than girls and women’s wellbeing? wow, such a feminist king, justice in human form. they question, how could britain let those barbarians do that to their girls? probably the same way they let their own barbarians do it to the girls??? they ask, what other country would try to kill itself by ignoring such terrible grooming and sex trafficking crimes? ehm, every single one???

their “sincere” surprise and fury and curses amaze me to such a degree, i almost believed they actually cared about those british girls but of course, they don’t, they only care about their property being damaged not by those who this property is intended for but by some other. this is the only reason for such outcry and it angers me so much.

i see their talking points, and obviously they’re right in questioning why the police and government ignored these cases over the years, why nothing was done, why girls were put to the altar of “keeping peace”. however, this is not the first case. this is not the first rape or first sex trafficking or kidnapping or murder getting ignored, victims blamed, criminals forgiven. and this is not the last. and every time these crimes are discussed, every single man whose opinion i see on every single social media platform defends the rapist, the murderer, and never the victim. they curse her, blame her, shame her, silence her.

they never defend women, they never defend girls. the only time they will do try to show their empathy to women’s pain is when what they see as their property gets damaged by someone else. they pretend to care all of a sudden, it’s such a cruel and horrible act. they will simulate being protective and righteously angered, only because they want to be the ones doing that, not some pakistani muslims, it should be them, in this case white and british. and when that happens, when the perpetrators will be the “right” ones, they will not mutter a single word of remorse and understanding for the victims, quite the opposite, they will condemn victims and praise the perpetrators.

the only good (or not so much) thing i find in these posts is that they still lack real empathy, they show they’re men and they have no idea what they’re talking about, they never understand the whole problem and their ignorance is easy to spot.

[misfitwashere]

The Muskrat Goes Global

Why is the richest person on earth with the largest political platform in the world and the next U.S. president in his pocket becoming a global neo-fascist? What can be done to constrain him?

ROBERT REICH

JAN 7

Friends,

Elon Musk repeatedly asserts, without evidence, that British Prime Minister Keir Starmer covered up the abuses of young girls by gangs comprised largely of British Pakistani men, in cases that date back to before 2010 when Starmer was head of Britain’s public prosecutions. 

“Starmer was complicit in the RAPE OF BRITAIN when he was head of Crown Prosecution for 6 years,” Musk posted to the top of his account on Friday. “Starmer must go and he must face charges for his complicity in the worst mass crime in the history of Britain.”

In fact, Starmer, who heads the Labour government, did not cover up abuses. Instead, he brought the first case against an Asian grooming gang and drafted new guidelines for how the Crown Prosecution Service should deal with cases of sexual exploitation of children, including the mandatory reporting of child sex offenses. 

Musk also calls Jess Phillips, the Labour government’s under secretary for safeguarding and violence against women and girls, a “rape genocide apologist” because she pushed back on calls for a national inquiry into child sexual exploitation in Oldham, a town near Manchester. 

In fact, Phillips, who has long campaigned for women’s rights, has called for a local investigation by Oldham authorities rather than the central government. Women’s rights supporters say Musk’s labeling Phillips a “rape genocide apologist” is threatening her safety.

Yesterday, Starmer warned publicly that Musk’s baseless accusations “crossed a line,” adding that “once we lose the anchor that truth matters, in the robust debate that we must have, then we are on a very slippery slope.”

Musk’s global reach

Musk’s lies about the left-wing British government and his support for far-right groups are parts of an emerging pattern. Musk is also: 

boosting the far-right party in Germany with neo-Nazi ties, known as Alternative for Germany (AfD), before elections early next month. Musk signaled his support for AfD in mid-December, writing in a post on X that“only the AfD can save Germany.” He also penned an oped in a German newspaper recently, describing the party as the “last spark of hope” for the country. Musk is planning an online “discussion” on X with the AfD’s leader and candidate for chancellor, Alice Weidel, amplifying the party’s neo-Nazi ideology. 

attacking the Italian judiciary for curbing Italian Prime Giorgia Meloni’s hardline anti-asylum immigration policies. Musk has met regularly with Meloni, who has called him a friend, and appeared at a youth event for Meloni’s party. 

urging support for Britain’s far-right MP Nigel Farage’s anti-immigration Reform U.K. Party. Musk says he might donate upward of 100 million pounds ($127 million) to Farage’s group. 

demanding Britain “free Tommy Robinson,” the far-right founder of the English Defence League — an Islamophobic, nationalist group and anti-immigrant agitator whom, Musk charges, is in jail for “telling the truth.” In fact, Robinson is in jail because he was found to have defamed a teenage Syrian refugee and then defied a British court order by repeating the false claims. (Robinson has been previously jailed for assault, mortgage fraud and traveling on a false passport to the United States, where he has sought to establish ties with right-wing groups.) 

allowing on X inflammatory lies of a kind that incited anti-immigrant riots in Britain last July, following the killing of three girls in a mass stabbing in the town of Southport. After Britain arrested more than 30 people, Musk condemned the government for what he called an attack on free speech.

calling Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau an “insufferable tool” over comments Trudeau made in support of Kamala Harris, and predicted he “won’t be in power for much longer.” (Yesterday, Trudeau announced he will resign.)

Where Musk is getting this power

As the richest person in the world, politicians everywhere now recognize his capacity to pour money into their parties and political campaigns, as he did by investing a quarter of a billion dollars to get Trump elected. 

He also owns X, formerly Twitter, which (as of December 2024) has 619 million monthly active users. He has manipulated X’s algorithm to boost his own posts, which now reach 210 million. 

But Musk’s real power these days comes from his proximity to and presumed influence over Donald Trump, soon to be President of the United States. 

Musk has hardly left Trump’s side since the election, meaning that Musks’s opinions (amplified by his social media platform) cannot be ignored by politicians around the world who are trying to decipher Trump’s opinions. 

One prominent member of Germany’s center-left Social Democratic Party is asking that Germany determine “whether [Musk’s] repeated disrespect, defamation and interference in the election campaign were also expressed in the name of the new U.S. government.”

This combination — the richest person in the world, owner and manipulator of the biggest political messaging platform in the world, with direct influence over Trump — puts Musk in the position of being able to move other nations toward the neo-fascist right. 

Why Musk is doing this

Not for money. As it is, he has far more than any human can utilize. 

Partly, it’s ideological. He calls himself a “free speech absolutist,” which puts him at odds with Europe’s and Canada’s aggressive responses to hate speech online. (Britain, Musk says, “is turning into a police state.”)

But the roots of Musk’s neo-fascism probably go deeper. 

I am no psychoanalyst but I imagine that as an immigrant from South Africa, Musk is especially triggered by poor people of color moving into white nations. His father smuggled raw emeralds and had them cut in Johannesburg.

Part of his shift to the radical right also comes from Musk’s transgender child. As Musk told conservative commentator Jordan Peterson, “I lost my son, essentially,” claiming she was “dead, killed by the woke mind virus. I vowed to destroy the woke mind virus after that.” (Musk’s daughter, Vivian Jenna Wilson, now 20, told NBC News that Musk was an absent father who was cruel to her as a child for being queer and feminine.) 

On X, Musk continuously criticizes transgender rights, including medical treatments for trans-identifying minors, and the use of pronouns if they are different from what would be used at birth. He has promoted anti-trans content and called for arresting people who provide trans care to minors. Last July, Musk said he was pulling his businesses out of California to protest a new state law that bars schools from requiring that trans kids be outed to their parents. After Musk bought X, then known as Twitter, in 2022, he rolled back the app’s protections for trans people, including a ban on using birth names (known as “deadnames” for transgender people).

Perhaps the major reason for Musk’s recent effort to push other nations to the neo-fascist right is his newfound thirst for right-wing global politics. After effectively (at least in Musk’s mind) winning the presidency for Trump by spending more than $250 million and unleashing a maelstrom of pro-Trump and anti-Harris lies over X, he now seeks even more of an authoritarian rush. 

It will not be the first time in history that someone is seduced by the thrill of unconstrained power, although it may be the first time that so much of it is concentrated in one unelected megalomaniac. 

What should be done about Musk?

For the time being, particularly under Trump, there is little that we in America can do to constrain Musk except by boycotting Tesla and X. 

Canada and Britain and other European nations, meanwhile, should, at the very least:

enact laws and regulations to prohibit non-citizens (like Musk) from financing activities that could affect their elections.

maintain, if not strengthen, laws and rules against hate speech, and ensure that they are applied to social media companies, such as Musk’s X. 

refuse to contract with Musk’s Space X and its Starlink satellite division, or with Musk’s other corporations (Tesla and the Boring Company).

disengage from any joint ventures or technology transfers involving Musk, including xAI, his artificial intelligence company. 

(If you’ve got other ideas, please include in the comments.)

[coochiequeens]

"There were thousands of victims: 1,400 in Rotherham, 1,000 in Telford, more than 300 in Oxford. It was an industry of sexual violence."

By Brendan O’Neill

It’s the scandal that refuses to die. Despite the best efforts of our spineless elites – who’d rather talk about anything on Earth other than grooming gangs – it keeps creeping back. For all the left’s cheap, libellous cries about how racist it is to talk about these gangs, people keep talking about them. In the face of official indifference to the suffering of thousands of poor and working-class girls at the hands of these groomers and abusers, people have demanded a reckoning. There is a public thirst for truth, and no amount of top-down slander and censure can crush it.

Three days into 2025, grooming gangs are back in the news. As British readers will know, ‘grooming gangs’ is the somewhat euphemistic name given to those marauding bands of men from mostly Pakistani backgrounds who subjected girls of the white working class to horrific abuse. In towns across the UK – Rotherham, Rochdale, Huddersfield, Oldham, Telford, Oxford – gangs of men plied girls with drugs, demeaned them, exploited them, raped them. Conservative MP Robert Jenrick has a point when he says the flat phrase ‘grooming gangs’ seems designed to ‘sanitise depraved crimes’. They’re ‘rape gangs’, he says.

They were. The girls who fell victim to these gangs experienced the most hellish degradation. The men ‘deliver[ed] them to hell’, as one prosecutor put it. In Huddersfield, girls were ‘passed around and raped’. In Manchester, a girl was injected with heroin to make her easier to rape. In Rochdale, a girl called Ruby was raped a hundred times from the age of 12. She had an abortion at 13. There were thousands of victims: 1,400 in Rotherham, 1,000 in Telford, more than 300 in Oxford. It was an industry of sexual violence.

What made these horrors even worse – and in some cases what made them possible – was the calculated indifference of officialdom. Across England, local politicians and cops were initially loath to dig into the gangs, lest they stir up ‘sensitive community issues’. They knew very well that gangs of men from Pakistani backgrounds were preying on white girls from the dirt-poor parts of town, but they held back because they didn’t want to be seen as ‘targeting [a] minority group’. In town after town, ‘race relations’ were elevated above the safety and dignity of working-class girls. Protecting the ideology of multiculturalism was seen as more important than protecting girls from rape. The girls were sacrificed to ideology, their humiliation treated as a small price to pay for upholding the edicts of political correctness.

Now, this outrage is making waves again. It follows Home Office minister Jess Phillips’s rejection of Oldham Council’s request for a government-led inquiry into the ‘grooming gangs’ scourge. The fearless reportage of Charlie Peters at GB News has also helped to drag these sick crimes back into the spotlight. Elon Musk is stirring it up too, cack-handedly, using X to slam Keir Starmer’s government and Britain more broadly for our failures over what he calls this ‘rape genocide’. That our media ‘hid’ these atrocities for so long is awful, he says.

There’s historical erasure at play here. Mr Musk, and others, might have first heard about the ‘grooming gangs’ scandal in 2025, but Brits have been aware of it for years. It was the mainstream media that uncovered it. For years The Times was all over this story. Julie Bindel wrote about it as far back as 2007. spiked has covered it in depth for more than a decade. The idea that we need a rich rabble-rouser in America to pry open our eyes to our nation’s legion crimes and failures is ridiculous. Here’s my question for those feverishly tweeting about these ‘grooming gangs’ they’ve just discovered – where have you been?

This horror hasn’t been ‘hidden’. It’s been the subject of much media scrutiny and righteous public fury. But here’s the curious thing, the worrying thing: while there’s been a great deal of reportage on ‘grooming gangs’, there hasn’t been the reckoning we really need. While there have been numerous local inquiries – all cataloguing the gross failures of officials who showed more concern for communal peace than female safety – still the scandal rarely troubles the broader political conscience. Everyone knows about it, but few dwell on it. In polite society it is the great unmentionable, the atrocity that dare not speak its name. You wring your hands over it, and nothing more. You agree it was bad, and you move on.

It’s not hard to see why a culture of cowardice still clings to this scandal more than any other – it’s because the questions it raises about 21st-century Britain are legion, profound and terrifying. Thousands of girls subjected to vile abuse while officialdom, the police, the left and even many feminists looked the other way because they value communal calm more than working-class life and dignity? No wonder they wish this scandal would go away. No wonder they’re content to acknowledge it but never interrogate it. No wonder they’re more comfortable talking about a Tory MP putting his hand on a middle-class journalist’s knee. They simply lack the psychological and moral resources to reflect on what it says about their rule that thousands of poor and working-class girls were raped right under the nose of their bureacracy.

It isn’t because they think the ‘grooming gangs’ scandal is insignificant that they avoid dwelling on it. On the contrary, it is precisely the mammoth nature of the scandal, the vast and swirling questions it raises, that makes them so allergic to grappling with it. This is without question one of the great outrages of the postwar period. It is the moment the state failed, catastrophically, in its most basic duty: to protect its citizens from harm. It’s the scandal that exposes the sinister self-preserving instincts of the bureaucratic elites, who we now know will do anything to protect their ideology and influence, including turning a blind eye to the rape of destitute girls. They shout ‘racist!’ at anyone who talks about ‘grooming gangs’ because they know our pesky questions threaten to unravel their moral pretensions and shatter their political authority. They know what’s at stake.

For nothing exposes the dangerous aloofness of Britain’s new ruling class as much as the ‘grooming’ scandal does. This scandal speaks to their classism, cowardice and deep distrust of us, the public. Every step of the way in this horror, they were guided by their fear of the masses, their dread of the plebs. From their panic about stirring up ‘Islamophobia’ to their fear of fuelling the ‘far right’, they confirmed, again and again, their view of everyday Brits as a mob-in-waiting, as so bigoted and volatile that we cannot be trusted with the truth about these gangs, or anything else. They failed working-class girls and then demeaned the whole public. They treated poor girls as trash and then trashed the right of everyone else to protest against it. This scandal is far from over. It has only just begun.

[darkmaga-returns]

The Despicable British Government Gave Immigrant-invaders the Right to Rape Underage British Girls

Paul Craig Roberts

Elon Musk Holds UK Prime Minister Starmer Accountable:

“Gangs across the UK, involving men of predominantly Pakistani origin, rape-tortured vulnerable girls on an industrial scale over the last thirty years, with multiple independent inquiries indicating systemic failures to investigate the crimes. According to three separate reports published in 2013, 2014, and 2015, local politicians and police alike opted to cover up the rapes partly out of fear that bringing the perpetrators to justice would be seen as ‘racist.'”

“Musk launched an attack on Starmer earlier this week, accusing him of failing to tackle the grooming-gangs issue or to properly investigate numerous assaults on underage girls at the time when the incumbent Prime Minister led the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service, from 2008 to 2013. Among other things, the billionaire called the grooming gangs a “state-sponsored evil,” stating Starmer was “complicit in the RAPE OF BRITAIN” and should not only resign but also face criminal charges.”

Musk added the despicable British media to the list of those who protected the rape gangs:  “This is the same media that hid the fact that a quarter million little girls were – still are – being systematically raped by migrant gangs in Britain. They are beneath contempt. Despicable human beings.”

The UK and all of Europe are already experiencing The Camp of the Saints, and they are too indoctrinated to realize it.

[samueldays]

E(X) is wrong or intractable, and other problems

Recently, Bryan Caplan wrote a Substack post E(X)>0: An Open Letter to Elon. I have objections to it.

review draft, will be republished with edits after feedback

1. My overarching objection to Caplan's vagueness is this question: E(X) on what metrics, according to whom, and for whom?

In his post, Caplan suggests that the United States (and, I would imagine, any developed country), should admit any would-be immigrant "with a positive expected value", in math notation E(X)>0.

Caplan strikes me as doing some "eulering" here, making math-y noises to borrow the clout of mathematics, talking as though an objective calculation of expected value [EV] can decide a matter which involves a great many subjective preferences and (assertions of) human rights. Then he does not perform the calculation.

He implicitly describes a calculation in his point 12:

“Why on Earth don’t we heavily restrict welfare benefits for migrants, so E(X)>0 for far more people?!”

which suggests that his expectation E(X) is calculated in terms of something like "net taxpayers". I don't know what calculation he actually has in mind, because - and this is a major issue - he doesn't specify the calculation that his argument leans so heavily on.

I will not criticise the specific "net taxpayers" possibility too harshly, for fear of strawmanning. I will instead mostly criticise him for the under-specification, and I think the general class of Expected Value Calculations consonant with "heavily restrict welfare benefits" are easily gamed while failing to capture the values and preferences involved in opposing mass immigration. The details Caplan has given are exploitable; the details Caplan has not given are a canvas on which each listener is invited to project his preference.

One can imagine a theoretical EV calculation for which it is tautologically true that one would want to import all E(X)>0 foreigners, but the hypothesis of a Platonic object tells one nothing about what that calculation is or how many foreigners are E(X)>0 to import.

I don't want to attack something Caplan didn't say, but he's skipped some important argument steps that I think would merit a great deal of attack if he did say them. For example the steps between the welfare-benefits-based EV calculation, and the "everyone with E(X)>0" assertion, because I can easily imagine people who are net negatives to have around even if they are not net welfare consumers.

Now you’re saying, roughly, that we should only welcome people that definitely have highly positive value. In your words:

If one is operating anywhere near a welfare-benefits-based kind of EV calculation, then it certainly behooves one to take only people who definitely have highly positive value on that calculation, because they may have negative other factors that bring the "true" EV calculation down and so one needs a buffer on the welfare-benefits side to ensure that "true" E(X) > 0.

Which brings me to:

2. The Black Swan of Rotherham.

In 2005, if you had suggested that mass migration would reintroduce slavery to Britain, you would probably be laughed out of the room for absurd paranoid fearmongering. Around 2010-2015 the Rotherham rape ring scandals came to light, first in Rotherham itself and then in Telford and elsewhere, and it gradually turned out that mass migration had reintroduced slavery to Britain.

I speak here of "slavery" in an institutional sense. A single man who is coerced to work and cheated out of his rightful pay may be called a slave, and statistically speaking that probably happened numerous times after Britain abolished slavery in 1833, but an incident does not make an institution. Whereas circa 1980, Britain imported Pakistani rape-gangs numbering in the hundreds of slavers, who took ten thousand British girls as sex slaves across dozens of cities over the next few decades.

That was institutional by scale; it was also institutional by policy because when the fathers of enslaved children attempted to recover their children, the police ran interference for the slavers, even arresting some of the fathers for disturbing the peace and inciting racial hatred. Politicians helped hush up the slaver rings because they were concerned that people noticing the Pakistani slaver rings raping ten thousand of British girls might lead to the Brits being racist against Pakistanis.

Problem 2a is the object level: importing slavers to enslave the existing population has very large negative EV for an intuitive EV calculation, but it hardly shows up in the ratio of taxes paid to welfare benefits received by the slavers.

Problem 2b is the future unknowns: considering how unpredicted and unnoticed this was until after the fact, how many other problems of the general type of "Ooops, we reintroduced slavery" may be lurking? India has for example Hindutva vigilantes who murder people for violating the sacredness of cows (at least 9 dead in 2024); imagine importing those from a place where beef is banned to a place whose national dish is the hamburger.

Problem 2c is the lies and coverups: many powerful people thought it was more important to preserve the reputation of immigrants in general and Pakistanis in specific than to stop slave-rape-gangs. This creates a credibility problem when looking for sources to calculate the impact of migration. Caplan seems more honest than average, but still shows some sympathy for coverups in his point 14:

My friend and colleague Tyler Cowen recently advised you to stop publicly defending high-skilled immigration, and “just work behind the scenes.” Maybe he’s right, but I think he underestimates your powers of persuasion.

Problem 2d was the weak response: Britain jailed only a small fraction of the slavers, the policemen got a slap on the wrist with one police commissioner stepping down, there should have been a targeted re-education program to break the Pakistani-British culture and enforce assimilation or deportation, there was not, instead there was a stricter control of people saying racist things on the internet, while importing more Pakistanis. This has generated substantial ethnic resentment among the native British population.

How do these figure into the E(X) of mass migration, or the determination of whether it's above 0? God only knows. The error bar on the value of Pakistani immigration looks larger than the value itself to me.

Perhaps Caplan intends to filter out such people from mass migration as part of EV determination. If so, he's handwaving over both a calculation problem and a practical implementation problem.

3. Rights, Privileges, Serfs, and Riots

Some time ago, a fellow on Tumblr bemoaned how difficult it was to move to another country.

I responded that it was trivial to "move to" as in transport myself to another country, which I had recently done that year for my summer vacation, but it was difficult to "move to" as in acquire political power and entitlements in another country for arguably good reason, and challenged the fellow to clarify which he meant. I never got a response.

Bryan Caplan trades on similar ambiguity when he posts cartoon panels such as this:

As written, I deny the claimed "right". I do not think he believes it himself; he would deny my "right" to live and work in his house.

But even interpreted charitably, Caplan is playing games, he is pulling a bait and switch maneuver, he is doing a motte-and-bailey between move as in transport and move as in acquire entitlements, and he is skipping important steps. Once again it's hard to give specific criticisms because I don't know which end of the ambiguity he really intends, so I will attempt to suggest some problems at either end:

If Caplan asserts a right for people to live and work and acquire political power and entitlements in foreign countries, he's arguing for a self-contradictory 'right to privileges', and he's arguing for the 'right' to destroy every small country in the world, in particular the ROC (population 23 million) which is susceptible to the PRC (population 1.4 billion) finding the 0.2% most patriotic loyalists (28 million), sending them into ROC and holding a majority vote to integrate the ROC into the PRC. This strikes me as an obviously wrong conclusion, reductio ad absurdum.

On the other hand, if Caplan asserts a right for people to live and work where they like but only as long as they're a powerless underclass banned from the ER, existing to pay taxes to the native population, and getting deported if they become welfare cases, then a moral problem is that he's advocating something like the return of serfdom.

Spare me the medieval nitpicking, I know the word is not exactly accurate, serfs had more rights than that. Helots is more accurate, but I think most English-speakers have an intuition for "serfs" that they don't have for "helots".

A practical problem following from that is that a large helot class in America would be very hard to keep as helots, when the country has a tradition of democracy, a history of expanding the franchise over time, and riots. The helots would be political tinder waiting to burn.

I ask Caplan: Suppose you get your helot class, American GDP goes up, and then a photogenic helot dies in a way that might have been prevented by welfare, leaving behind a pair of sad orphans. The Democrats spring into action to demand helot welfare and enfranchisement, organizing a helot riot. What do you do?

Of note here is that a helot riot doesn't have to win to wipe out the tax gains from helots. BLM's fiery rioting in 2020 caused at least a billion dollars in damages (as measured by insurance payouts) without abolishing the police.

4. Wage Suppression and Automation

In his proposal to optimize net taxpayers or something like it, Caplan would optimize at the expense of a great many Americans, particularly low-skill Americans who would suffer from extreme wage suppression. America is a nice place to live partly because of the twofold effects of labor scarcity: labor had more bargaining power against capital, and was able to demand better working conditions, and labor scarcity incentivized automation, which freed people up to do other jobs.

Regarding bargaining power: Caplan analogizes America to a corporation, I would respond by analogizing America to a union, and Caplan's proposal to colossal amounts of scab labor intended to break the union to save the CEO some money. Why should the union put up with this?

Regarding automation: If one goes back a few millennia, almost all of humanity worked one of two jobs: producing food or producing clothes. By inventions such as the plow, the loom, the horse collar, the spinning wheel, and the tractor, machines* took almost all these jobs and humans were freed up to do other work like steelmaking and glassblowing. Then machines mostly took those jobs too, the process of automation repeated, and now the average American benefits from machine-power equaling the manual labor of hundreds of humans.

*horses are machines in this context.

Caplan proposes to import large amounts of unskilled migrant labor to do scut work, and doesn't say how this interacts with automation. Concretely:

But look at your own companies. You don’t just hire top engineers and programmers. You hire receptionists, assembly-line workers, janitors, gardeners, and construction workers. With good reason: Otherwise, your top engineers and programmers would have to waste their precious time answering Tesla’s phones, assembling its cars, cleaning its toilets, mowing its lawns, and pouring its concrete.

Many of these look automatable, particularly the assembly line, which is already well into the process.

Once again I'm frowning at an ambiguous gap in Caplan's proposal, where I can imagine several possible views but criticising any particular one is something of a strawman because Caplan hasn't committed to it.

Does he imagine that automation will decline naturally as a result of the cheap labor? Because that sounds like trading long-term benefit for short-term net taxpayer count.

Does he imagine that automation should be held back? Same but worse.

Does he imagine that automation can't take these jobs any time soon? Sounds fake.

Does he imagine that automation will take these jobs soon but then America can just send all the migrants back once they're out of work, and wash its hands of them? Sounds unlikely and impractical.

Does he imagine that automation will take these jobs soon but low-skill migrants will simply retrain and develop skills for new jobs? Sounds wrong by construction.

And once more I ask: E(X) for whom? Caplan says America "needs" mass unskilled immigration, but large numbers of Americans would suffer from this.

5. Social Contracts

I am generally skeptical of social contract theorists as trying to claim too many specifics from too little evidence. Hobbes in particular was lying about the war of all against all. Even so I am sympathetic to a minimal account which goes something like this:

I (we in general) will give up my natural right to take amateur vengeance on and extract compensation from anyone who has wronged me. In exchange, the State promises to perform vengeance by a professional enforcer class in a way that's predictable and reliable and won't lead to blood feuds, and to pay me compensation from the collective compensation fund.

The modern American state has enforced a broadly similar new social contract which I might describe thus:

I (we in general) will give up my natural right of freedom of association, to decide which countrymen I will admit or exclude to my business, hire or not. In exchange, the State promises to perform exclusion at the country border by a professional enforcer class, lowering friction internally and lowering costs of maintaining an exclusion around the collective American identity.

I have complaints and nitpicks about this, but I can see a meaningful value proposition in it.

When Caplan argues for open borders, he is arguing to take away what Americans received in that second contract. Again there's a gap where I don't know what Caplan believes, so I will comment on the two likely interpretations I can think of:

Is Caplan trying to tear up the new social contract in its entirety? Then I want him to bite the bullet and say out loud that he supports the right to whites-only workplaces and thinks the Civil Rights Act should be overturned.

Is Caplan trying to take away the benefit of the new social contract and give nothing in return? Then many Americans might reasonably want him jailed for conspiracy against rights and similar offenses.

6. Policy Change Friction Around Humans

Bryan Caplan argues against "safetyism" and makes the analogy that just as an investor should want to make every investment with E(X)>0, a country should want to admit every migrant with E(X)>0. He admits "While there are obviously major differences between running a corporation and running a government", then ignores this obvious point as though it made no difference.

I want to highlight a particular point of disanalogy: it is much easier, practically and morally and legally, for an investor to ditch a million-dollar investment at the first sign of it turning bad than it is for a country to ditch a million migrants at the first sign of them turning bad.

Migration is difficult and costly to reverse, and most countries have significant political constituencies opposed to that reversal, backed by international organizations such as Amnesty. You'd be hard pressed to find a single elected official with a strong opinion that Jane Doe must stay invested in Acme Corp, for most values of Jane and Acme.

Under these circumstances, some form of safetyism is correct: the threshold should not be E(X)>0, but E(X) > Cost(Deportation), estimated around eighty thousand dollars per person by the American Immigration Council. Which is probably biased, but the sources I can find for estimating this number seem to amount to either AIC knockoffs or else Trump fanatics insisting "deportation will pay for itself".

7. Assume a spherical cow in a vacuum

The "spherical cow" is originally a physics joke about greatly simplified modeling that discards many features of the object under consideration to simplify calculations. In physics, this is often good enough because the features under consideration, e.g. "mass of an object", range between the 10^-21 grams of an atom and the 10^33 grams of the Sun, so one can afford to round off (ha) a great deal and still be close enough on an exponential scale. The Earth is approximately spherical even if a mountain rises a few miles above sea level, that's very little compared to the circumference of thousands of miles.

Outside of physics, the spherical cow approach is less applicable.

I would like to see Bryan Caplan distinguish more sharply between the realistic policy changes he's pushing for on the margin, and the spherical cow policies where he imagines a friendly Supreme Dictator who can copy UAE policies to the US, which are a hopefully unintentional motte-and-bailey defense. I would also like to see more awareness from Caplan of when he is assuming a spherical immigrant who can be rolled across a frictionless border in a political vacuum. Caplan's talk of E(X)>0 is spherical talk, assuming a simple calculation. Caplan's neglect of ethnic resentment in the implied EV calculation is discarding important features. Caplan's implication of ditching migrants if their recalculated E(X)<0 is handwaving over a great many issues.

Perhaps the worst simplification of Caplan's is disregarding the potential political power of migrants, or its near relative, the willingness of the Democrat Party to clientize migrants for political power.

[poipoipoi-2016]

Given that the earliest documented Pakistani gang rape of children was in 1975, how has Britain not done anything about this at any point in the last FIFTY YEARS?

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: The Times

Published: Jan 5, 2011

A culture of silence that has facilitated the sexual exploitation of hundreds of young British girls by criminal pimping gangs is exposed by The Times today.

For more than a decade, child protection experts have identified a repeated pattern of sex offending in towns and cities across northern England and the Midlands involving groups of older men who groom and abuse vulnerable girls aged 11 to 16 after befriending them on the street.

Most of the victims are white and most of the convicted offenders are of Pakistani heritage, unlike other known models of child-sex offending in Britain, including child abuse initiated by online grooming, in which the vast majority of perpetrators are white.

Northern police forces have investigated gangs of on-street predators for at least 14 years. In the most serious cases, children have been moved around the country in cars and used for sex by older men. This has led to abortions for girls as young as 12. In November, a court heard that when a South Yorkshire victim, aged 13, was examined by a nurse she appeared to have been raped more than 50 times.

Most forces, in common with charities and agencies working to help girls who have endured weeks and sometimes months and years of repeated sexual abuse, have denied publicly that ethnicity has any relevance to this pattern of on-street grooming.

The Times has identified 17 court prosecutions since 1997, 14 of them during the past three years, involving the on-street grooming of girls aged 11 to 16 by groups of men. The victims came from 13 towns and cities and in each case two or more men were convicted of offences.

In total, 56 people, with an average age of 28, were found guilty of crimes including rape, child abduction, indecent assault and sex with a child. Three of the 56 were white, 53 were Asian. Of those, 50 were Muslim and a majority were members of the British Pakistani community.

Several police sources have told The Times that those convicted represent only a small proportion of what one detective described as a “tidal wave” of offending that has been uncovered in Yorkshire, Lancashire, Greater Manchester and some Midlands counties.

A senior West Mercia detective has now called for an end to the “damaging taboo” surrounding gang-led on-street grooming, which he blames on a fear among police and child protection workers of being branded racist. Detective Chief Inspector Alan Edwards said: “These girls are being passed around and used as meat. To stop this type of crime you need to start talking about it, but everyone’s been too scared to address the ethnicity factor. No one wants to stand up and say that Pakistani guys in some parts of the country are recruiting young white girls and passing them around their relatives for sex, but we need to stop being worried about the racial complication.”

Writing in The Times today, Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, a national Muslim youth organisation, says: “These people think that white girls have fewer morals and are less valuable than our girls. This is a form of racism that is abhorrent and totally unacceptable in a society that prides itself on equality and justice.”

No research has been carried out into why such a high proportion of the offenders belong to one minority ethnicity and with the exception of one town there is scant evidence of work being undertaken in British Pakistani communities to confront the problem.

The Times has seen a briefing document by researchers at the UCL Jill Dando Institute of Security and Crime Science, which notes that victims are typically white girls aged 13 to 16 and that “most central offenders are Pakistani”, warning that “race is a delicate issue” that needs to be “handled sensitively but not brushed under the carpet”. The briefing document suggests that the offenders are not paedophiles; they target the girls “because of their malleability”.

In the Netherlands many groomers are of Moroccan heritage and a Dutch Muslim organisation has led a project seeking to challenge a cultural mindset that leads some young men to view non-Muslim girls with contempt.

Mr Edwards’ belief that similar work is needed in Britain is backed by another senior detective, who led a grooming investigation in West Yorkshire. Lack of public acknowledgement of the race factor in such cases has left a void exploited in some communities by the British National Party and other far-right groups.

In reality, such crimes are abhorred by the vast majority of Muslims. Though most of the girls targeted have been white, among the victims of a Pakistani gang in one city were several Bangladeshi Muslim girls.

The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre said in 2009 that networks of “white British, British Asians and Kurdish asylum-seekers” had been “prominently identified” as internal sex traffickers of British girls.

“Kurds are identified as being dominant in the North East of England, but Anglo-Asian groups appear to be in control in the Midlands. There are . . . suggestions that in London, West Indian (Caribbean) and Bangladeshi networks are similarly exploiting . . . females for sex.” With the exception of one case involving two white men in Blackburn, The Times has been unable to identify any court case in which two or more white British, Kurdish, African-Caribbean or Bangladeshi men have been convicted of child-sex offences linked to on-street grooming.

The Home Office said last night that although child protection was “an absolute priority”, it had no plans to commission research into the ethnic and cultural background of on-street groomers.

“We expect all local agencies to treat these crimes extremely seriously and to work together to address problems in individual communities,” said a spokesman.

[ Via: https://archive.today/HtpKw ]

==

Note the date.

https://quranx.com/33.59

O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves [part] of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.

https://quranx.com/Tafsir/Kathir/33.59

The Command of Hijab Here Allah tells His Messenger to command the believing women -- especially his wives and daughters, because of their position of honor -- to draw their Jilbabs over their bodies, so that they will be distinct in their appearance from the women of the Jahiliyyah and from slave women. The Jilbab is a Rida', worn over the Khimar. This was the view of Ibn Mas`ud, `Ubaydah, Qatadah, Al-Hasan Al-Basri, Sa`id bin Jubayr, Ibrahim An-Nakha`i, `Ata' Al-Khurasani and others. It is like the Izar used today. Al-Jawhari said: "The Jilbab is the outer wrapper. `Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn `Abbas said that Allah commanded the believing women, when they went out of their houses for some need, to cover their faces from above their heads with the Jilbab, leaving only one eye showing. Muhammad bin Sirin said, "I asked `Ubaydah As-Salmani about the Ayah:

(to draw their Jalabib over their bodies.) He covered his face and head, with just his left eye showing.''

(That will be better that they should be known so as not to be annoyed. ) means, if they do that, it will be known that they are free, and that they are not servants or whores.

(And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.) means, with regard to what happened previously during the days of Jahiliyyah, when they did not have any knowledge about this.

One of the functions of hijab is to identify the mumina (female believers) from the kafirat (female infidels), because the former are off-limits while the latter are fair game.

[frithwontdie]

GROOMING GANGS: BRITAIN'S SHAME: Documentary On Rape Of Adolescent English Working Class Girls "Promotes Racist Tropes"

[deborahdeshoftim5779]

A searing analysis from Melanie Phillips that uncovers the reasons for Britain's current rioting debacle, including facts that many other journalists have not discussed.

The violence on our streets today, as disgusting and inexcusable as it is, is the result of a failed policy and social experiment: mass immigration. While I am no friend to criminals and racial bigots, I am no friend to those who wrought this disastrous policy upon Britain, either.

Many of us warned that constant demonisation of critics of mass immigration only served to empower the extremists. One wonders whether that was deliberate: the act of marginalising criticism of mass immigration so that extremists would become enraged, thereby allowing supporters of mass immigration to dismiss their opposition entirely.

While the new government justifiably seeks the punishment of thugs, it must recognise that its support of uncontrolled immigration is the biggest cause of division and unrest in this country. Millions do not want it. Millions never asked for it in the first place. Millions have consistently voted against it.

When the British public discovered that gangs of Pakistani Muslim and British-Pakistani Muslim men were collecting white English girls in multiple cities for rape, gang rape, kidnapping, and even torture, and that police and social services aware of these accusations kept silent for fear of stoking racial division, the powers that be were extremely lucky that we did not see mass riots like we're seeing today.

This woeful story has left a lasting disgrace upon this country, and is an exact representation of why mass immigration and multiculturalism are profoundly foolish, reckless, failed ideas.

After at least 20 years of discontent over the rapid increase in immigration and total transformation of our country without consent, this violence is the inexcusable, yet predictable, result.

[ethiack]

Grooming Gangs: Britain's Shame

GB News Investigates presenter Charlie Peters tells the full story of the nationwide grooming gangs scandal. With exclusive interviews with survivors, whistleblowers and activists. More than one thousand rapes...

[boggart23]

Polish Professionals Living In Germany Say Immigration To Blame For New Year’s Eve Violence

by Egbert Nohbakkon, 6 January 2025  We bring you this report in a week that saw the resurgence in Britain of news relating to the scandal of organised gangs of mainly Muslim men of Pakistani and African origin systematically groomed, raped, sexually abused and pimped under age and vulnerable girls in towns with large immigrant populations, while the authorities turned a blind eye in the…

[influencermagazineuk]

Jess Phillips Condemns Tech Mogul’s Remarks as “Life-Endangering” UK Home Office, CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0, via Wikimedia Commons UK Home Office Minister Jess Phillips has accused Elon Musk of spreading dangerous disinformation that has intensified threats against her. The allegations stem from Musk’s public criticisms regarding the handling of grooming gang scandals in the UK, which he has shared on his social media platform X. Phillips, responsible for safeguarding in the UK government, has faced relentless verbal attacks from Musk, who labeled her an “evil witch” and a “rape genocide apologist” while calling for her imprisonment. Musk’s remarks followed Phillips' decision to decline Oldham council’s request for a national inquiry into grooming cases, opting instead for a local review. Controversial Handling of Grooming Scandals The issue has reignited fierce political debates in Britain. Musk’s demand for a broader national inquiry into historic grooming cases involving predominantly British-Pakistani men has divided opinions. Critics, including Phillips, argue that such rhetoric risks inflaming tensions and undermines established processes for addressing the crimes. Phillips defended her decision, citing past inquiries in Rotherham and Telford and a national review on child sexual exploitation, which concluded in 2022. Speaking to the BBC, she described the surge in threats against her as exhausting but dismissed attempts to silence her as futile. “I’m no stranger to people who don’t know what they’re talking about trying to silence women like me,” she said. However, Phillips emphasized that the abuse she has endured pales compared to what victims of the crimes have faced. She criticized Musk’s involvement, suggesting he should focus on his space ventures rather than UK policy. Broader Political Fallout Phillips’ stance has drawn mixed responses from political figures. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer strongly supported her, praising her advocacy for victims of abuse. Meanwhile, Robert Jenrick, Shadow Justice Secretary, acknowledged past failures by Conservative administrations to adequately address grooming gangs. Jenrick also defended his recent remarks linking cultural attitudes among migrants to the scandal, a comment that has drawn sharp criticism. He urged swift implementation of the 2022 inquiry recommendations, which have seen little progress due to political infighting. Professor Alexis Jay, who chaired the national inquiry into child sexual abuse, expressed concerns about the politicization of the issue, warning that calls for new probes could delay meaningful reform. She accused commentators of engaging in “uninformed” arguments that detract from addressing systemic failings. Amplifying Far-Right Rhetoric? Starmer has accused some Conservative politicians of echoing far-right narratives while neglecting the issue for over a decade. The Labour leader called for a more unified and informed approach to tackling child sexual exploitation and criticized delays in implementing key recommendations from previous inquiries. As the controversy unfolds, the debate over how best to handle the grooming scandal remains a flashpoint in British politics, with Phillips at the center of the storm. Read the full article

[darkmaga-returns]

Achallenge of describing Britain’s grooming gang scandal for an international audience is convincing the reader that it really happened and is not simply the product of a morbid fantasy.

This is not just because the crimes at its heart—those crimes being the rape and torture of young girls—are so appalling. They are, of course, but appalling crimes happen everywhere, becoming no less evil for their pervasiveness. Nor is it not just because the crimes took place on such a vast scale. In Rotherham alone, in South Yorkshire, there might have been 1,500 victims. It is also because the authorities—police officers, social workers and politicians—failed so miserably and wickedly to prevent them.

In Rotherham, and Rochdale, and Telford, and many, many other places, evil men raped vulnerable girls with impunity while the officials looked the other way (and, in some cases, actively helped). How could this have happened? It is partly because the perpetrators were disproportionately of migrant heritage. A striking number of them were ethnically Pakistani. Most—though not all—of their victims were white girls, which, judging by the vicious comments that have been reported, had a lot to do with anti-white racism. “All white girls are good for is sex,” one rapist reportedly told his victim, “They are just slags.”

Local authorities were uncomfortable about digging into claims of young girls being raped on the grounds of political correctness. In Telford, for example, according to an independent report, authorities feared “complaints of racism”.

[samueldays]

I intend for this to be my last britbong post for a while, so I don't become a one-note blog. I will get out my rant here and be done.

The posts, allegedly:

Prosecutor George Shelley said Dunn had posted three separate images. The first one showed a group of men, Asian in appearance, at Egremont crab fair 2025, with the caption: “Coming to a town near you.” The second also showed a group of men, Asian in appearance leaving a boat on to Whitehaven beach. This, said Mr Shelley, had the caption: “When it’s on your turf, then what?” A final image showed a group of men, again Asian in appearance, wielding knives in front of the Palace of Westminster. There was also a crying white child in a Union flag T-shirt. This was also captioned, said Mr Shelley, with the wording: “Coming to a town near you.”

I didn't find any source that provided the images themselves, so in light of the way British papers use "Asian" as a euphemism, I think it's likely this man was memeing about the PAKISTANI RAPE GANGS in Rotherham, Telford, and elsewhere who had RAPED THOUSANDS OF BRITISH GIRLS. The British prosecutors ought to spend more time on rape gangs, and an approximately negative amount of time on the men who are offended by the rape gangs and posting images about it. Give him a commendation for Raising Awareness.

Sentencing Thompson, Judge Temperley had said of the zero tolerance approach being taken by courts:  “This offence, I’m afraid, has to be viewed in the context of the current civil unrest up and down this country. And I’ve no doubt at all that your post is connected to that wider picture.

how about "context" and "wider picture" of rape gangs, shithead

“That has to be reflected in the sentence as does there need to be a deterrent element in the sentence that I impose, because this sort of behaviour has to stop. “It encourages others to behave in a similar way and ultimately it leads to the sorts of problems on the streets  that we’ve been seeing in so many places up and down this country. This offence is serious enough for custody.”

I think the rioters should impose a deterrent element on judges, because this sort of sentencing behavior has to stop.

Years ago I visited Britain and thought the poverty and dysfunction and low quality of things from restaurant tables and rental cars to internet connection and interior plumbing felt second-world compared to Norway. Britain had surprisingly rotted to become worse than Poland on several material counts. Now this is a nasty sociological mark against Britain, too.

Another bit of "context" I'll offer is that the British 2005, 2010, 2015, 2017 and 2019 elections were all won by parties (Conservative or Labour) who promised reduced immigration, and the Brits got increased immigration anyway. Massively increased.

If you take all the "democracy" and "representative government" and "will of The People" shit seriously, then The People of Britain are entitled to reduced immigration - it is their right for there to be fewer "Asians" in the country, as was promised to them, as they voted for. Having tried to get this at the ballot box five elections in a row, democratic governance has failed. The government has been denying the people their right. Judges should be issuing deportation orders for immigrants, not jailing nativists. I stress here that I am not a democrat myself, I do not believe in democracy, I am pointing out an implication of democratic legitimacy theory that rioters are the rightful democratic-revolutionary element of the people which is entitled to remove the government by force and install a more compliant one to restore the rights of the people and deport a million immigrants.

(They'll lose and not get that, I expect. Democratic legitimacy is gradually being superseded by Antihitlerian legitimacy, and peasant revolts need a powerful backer to have a chance, whether a defecting internal noble or external foreign supporter. Maybe Elon Musk would like a country. King Musk I of Britain...)