#Pakistani Rape Gangs of Britain

[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.

[darkmaga-returns]

The past few years have made cynics of a great many of us.

Sometimes hearts have to harden a bit for some of us to make it through another day. After all that’s transpired, I often think to myself, “Nothing could shock me anymore.”

Sadly, that has proven not to be the case.

Sometimes ignorance is blended with sheer, mind-bending depravity. The number of people actually celebrating the torture and slaughter of over a thousand innocent Jewish folks in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023 — and openly supporting Hamas — was depressing enough.

But the recent outcry in Britain among government types and the chattering classes over Elon Musk’s plea for an inquiry into the mostly Pakistani rape gangs that have for far too long tortured, abused, and even murdered countless young British lasses is beyond the pale.

Nicholas Watt, political editor at the BBC’s Newsnight, recently said to a clearly uncomfortable panel: "There is absolute horror at the highest levels of government at the “incendiary language” we have seen from Elon Musk."

In fact, according to Newsnight, Britain's socialist government is considering ending its security partnership with the United States if Donald Trump endorses Elon Musk's views on the groom-and-rape gangs. (Certain members of the American media seem to agree with the British elites that calling attention to the rape gangs is a bigger scandal than the rape gangs themselves.)

It is unsurprising that insufficiently bland language would shock and offend many in the British government and media, since free speech in Britain is almost as dead as many of the young girls who were brutalized by migrant South Asian men.

“Harumph! In polite society it is very bad form indeed to use words like ‘rape’ and ‘anal,’ let alone to cast aspersions on a marginalized group of immigrant men!

Has Elon Musk no shame?!”

[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.)

[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.

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 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 Rochdale 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 thousands of 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 repeatedly ran interference for the slavers, sometimes arresting the slaves, other times arresting the fathers for disturbing the peace, other times saying nothing could be done because of 'racial tensions'. Politicians helped hush up the slaver rings because they were concerned that people noticing the Pakistani slaver rings raping thousands of British girls might lead to the native 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, jail sentences were short, 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, will 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 wants to restore freedom of association and overturn the Civil Rights Act.

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 or similar offense.

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 dis-analogy: 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. 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 and costs.

Another oversimplification 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?

[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.

[milarvela]

Lol, I always love reading these. Especially of course when I don't give a fuck about the fandom(s) involved. The panic about fangirling something with nastiness attached to it and different types of coping. My favourite thing in this is "western rape culture". Judging by those many incidents where famous people are accused, its main characteristic is surfacing years, maybe decades, after it started/happened. So weird. Almost as if there are ulterior motives for first keeping quiet and then for speaking too. Does anybody ever ask what those might be and why the alleged victims just let the crimes continue? And there's always those other famous people who seem to have known but never said/did anything. I guess they think it's no use if the victims don't want to do anything either. But then there's the chance of getting your name soiled later on when some decide it's time, for whatever reason, to expose a celebrity...

What's eastern rape culture? Pakistani rape gangs in Britain?

There was an interesting thread on Bluesky dissecting Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett's relationship

TL:DR - It seems like Gaiman has been exaggerating the level of closeness between them for YEARS

[jfbuckley]

Absolutely and utterly DISGUSTING!!!

I think this rape gang scandal is the worst abdication of justice in British history.

Hundreds, if not THOUSANDS of young teenage girls have been raped and brutalised and the authorities have deserted them and looked the other way. Britain used to be well known for its justice system: nowadays it is also well known - but for being racist and corrupt.

Why were these girls abandoned? Simple - they were white and working class. Their abusers were men of Pakistani Muslim heritage. In modern day British thinking, the worst thing you can do is to give even the slightest suggestion that your thoughts are conditioned by race. It was thus easy to brush this matter under the carpet because the victims were white, working class and because they didn’t have any political leverage, they didn’t matter and could be ignored.

Before I get accused of racism, let me say this. It is stated that the big majority of child sexual abuse is done by white British males. I have absolutely no doubt that this is correct. It is shameful that so little is done here also. I also have no doubt that there are also plenty of rape/grooming gangs operated by white British males. All are equally abhorrent.

What upsets me is that the media and establishment very rightly condemn one of these forms of abuse, but the other kind gets swept under the table simply because it is too difficult to talk about the abusers.

It has to stop. If a crime is committed, the guilty parties have to be punished, whether they are white, black, brown or sky blue pink with green spots. No favour for one part of the community, no harsher punishment for another. Two Tier policing and justice like this is totally anathema to any concept of fair play and equity.

———

PS - Labour have behaved shamefully in this, but let us not forget that a huge amount of the abuse took place under 14 years of Tory rule, and they did the square root of nothing about it as well.

[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.

[oldraysblog]

Plurality of Britons Believe in Cover-up of Muslim Grooming Gangs

A plurality of Britons, including Labour voters, believe that there was a cover-up of the scale of the abuse and failings by local officials in the Muslim child rape grooming gang scandal.

According to a survey of 2,002 British voters conducted by Friderichs Advisory and JL Partners, nearly half of the public, 46 per cent, either tend to or strongly agree with the idea that there was a cover-up of the grooming gang scandal, GB News reports.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the percentage of both supporters of the Conservatives and Nigel Farge’s Reform UK party who believe there was a cover-up was above 50 per cent.

However, in what might be another blow to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s leftist government, the poll found that a plurality of Labour voters also believe there was a cover-up. The poll found that 41 per cent of Labour voters agreed that there was a cover-up, compared to around a fifth of Labour voters who disagreed.

Prime Minister Starmer, whose own role in the scandal from when he served as Britain’s top prosecutor between 2008 and 2013 might come under scrutiny in a full-scale investigation and whose part controlled many of the central grooming locations, controversially ordered members of his party last week to vote down a motion from Tory leader Kemi Badenoch to launch a national public inquiry.

Starmer argued that the government should focus on implementing recommendations of previous reports while castigating those demanding a full inquiry specifically focussed on the mainly Pakistani child rape gangs and the failure of local officials to protect young white girls as being merely a fixation of the “far-right“.

However, pressure has continued to ramp up on Starmer, with multiple Labour MPs breaking rank to demand a national inquiry, including the representatives for grooming hot spots Rochdale and Rotherham. The influential Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, has also broken with his party leader to call for a full investigation.

Contrary to Starmer’s dismissal, the poll released by GB News found that nearly two-thirds of Britons think that “those calling for a national inquiry are motivated by getting justice for the victims.”

As to the motivation for such an alleged cover-up, 42 per cent of those surveyed listed corruption as the most likely culprit, while 38 per cent said that it resulted from political correctness.

While there has never been a full national inquiry into the matter, previous localised and broader reports on child sex abuse found numerous instances of local officials ignoring the child rape and trafficking of young white girls by predominantly Pakistani-heritage grooming gangs for fear of appearing racist or stoking ethnic divisions.

The survey found that eight in ten Britons think that government authorities who either covered up or failed to investigate grooming gang allegations should face prosecution.

Meanwhile, two-thirds said that prosecutions of public servants who failed to safeguard young girls should face prison time. As for the grooming gang rapists, the poll found that 47 per cent backed life in prison, while 30 per cent believed that they should face the death penalty. Intriguingly, the two groups most likely to favour the death penalty were Reform UK voters and members of black or other ethnic minorities in the country.

The father of a grooming gang victim said: “Let’s just get on with it and put this to bed for good. People of this country deserve to know what our children are facing and they’re facing it today.”

Follow Kurt Zindulka on X:Follow @KurtZindulkaor e-mail to: kzindulka@breitbart.com

[masterofd1saster]

CJ current events 16jan25

America's crime problem has never been everyone committing one crime

New York City saw a “staggering” 146.5% jump in felony assault busts for repeat offenders over the past six years, the Big Apple’s top cop said — as the crime reached a two-decade high in 2024. Suspects with at least three arrests on their rap sheet were charged with assault 442 times last year, up from 274 in 2018 — part of a pattern that shows wrongdoers are being cut loose too often, with the NYPD blaming soft-on-crime Albany lawmakers.  “That is what we’re up against,” Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch told reporters at a briefing Monday. “And we know why. The key driving factor is the revolving door of our criminal justice system, created in large part by legislative changes that took effect in 2020.”*** Tisch singled out 57-year-old parolee Gary Worthy, accused of shooting and injuring both an NYPD cop and a 26-year-old woman – an innocent bystander – during an attempt to rob a Queens bodega. The injured officer, 7-year veteran Rich Wong, returned fire, fatally striking Worthy. “The shooter had 17 prior arrests — 17 of which happened when he was out on lifetime parole, including arrests for robbery, burglary and menacing within the past year,” Tisch said. “Let me repeat that: he was arrested and then released over and over again while on lifetime parole. This is evidence of a broken system, one that doesn’t put the rights and needs of victims first.”***

***

Pres-Elect Trump sentencing

On Fri, 10jan, Judge Juan M. Merchan apparently sentenced Pres-Elect Trump to no punishment. This was the business records case. It's sort of a double edged sword: Merchan and co get to call Trump a convicted felon, and Trump can now appeal the conviction. Many reasonable lawyers doubt that Trump rec'd a fair trial.

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/donald-trump-new-york-sentencing/2025/01/10/id/1194595

***

Britain: Pay no attention to the rapes behind the curtain!

An attempt by the Conservatives to have the government set up a national inquiry into grooming gangs has been voted down by 364 votes to 111 votes, a margin of 253. The amendment was attached to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which would have been killed had the vote passed. Earlier in the day, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch argued the government risks fuelling accusations of "a cover up" by refusing an inquiry.*** A local Rotherham inquiry uncovered the sexual abuse of 1,400 children over 16 years, mainly by British Pakistani men. In Telford, up to 1,000 girls faced abuse over 40 years, with some cases overlooked due to "nervousness about race" as most suspects were men of south Asian heritage.***

"South Asian" is the term polite Britain uses for "Pakistani."

***

Hey, you two, rent The Villages. Or something

WAUKESHA, Wis. - A man and woman – already charged with having sex in the Waukesha County Jail lobby last year – are now accused of having sex at a Waukesha laundromat. Desmound Cleveland and Karen Hill are each charged with misdemeanor disorderly conduct. Hill is additionally charged with two counts of misdemeanor bail jumping.***

Because what the world needs to see is more geriatric sex.

***

Your job is following leads

KALAMAZOO, Mich. — Detectives who arrested a Battle Creek man for two murders he didn't commit could soon be forced to pay up. A settlement conference is set for Feb. 5, nearly two years after Jeff Titus was released from prison. Titus was arrested in 2001, about 11 years after he was accused of murdering hunters Doug Estes and Jim Bennett near his Kalamazoo County property in 1990.*** By time Titus was released, he was 71 years old. This happened after authorities revealed Titus' lawyer was never given a police file with details about another suspect, Thomas Dillon, in 2002. Dillion was an Ohio serial killer whose five victims were killed between 1989 and 1992 while they were either hunting, fishing, or jogging.***

He was imprisoned >20 years.

The thing I hate about these stories is that they never talk about why the exonerated person was a suspect in the first place. For all we know, Titus may have threatened to kill Estes and Bennett and his dna was found on the murder weapon. I don't think so, but the story doesn't tell you.

***

How could I pass up a headline like

Gang Member "La Barbie" Allowed to Remove Ankle Monitor Before Being Caught Running Hotel Sex Prison

Estefania "La Barbie" Primera, a member of the Tren de Aragua gang, was permitted to remove her ankle monitor a year before authorities caught her orchestrating a lawless and brutal sex trafficking operation at a border hotel, according to sources. Allegedly, federal immigration officials allowed Primera, a suspected Venezuelan sex trafficker, to discard her tracking device after she complained that her belongings, including the monitor's charger, had been stolen. This leniency granted to "La Barbie" raises serious questions about the oversight of individuals involved in criminal activities. Subsequently, Primera was apprehended by law enforcement in El Paso, Texas, where she was accused of managing a sex trafficking ring within the confines of the Gateway Hotel. Shockingly, the hotel had been overtaken by members of the Tren de Aragua gang, adding a layer of complexity to the criminal activities unfolding within its walls.*** Disturbing court documents reveal harrowing testimonies from victims, with one individual alleging that Primera drugged her with a fentanyl-laced pill and facilitated a series of rapes while she was unconscious. The victim suffered severe injuries as a result of the traumatic ordeal. Furthermore, when the victim attempted to escape, "La Barbie" purportedly resorted to physical violence, forcibly returning the victim to the hotel by employing physical aggression in the form of punches and kicks, as detailed in the legal filings. Primera's arrest unfolded in late September outside the Sacred Heart Church in El Paso, a sanctuary for migrant arrivals. She was accompanied by her five young children, whom she allegedly exploited by involving them in drug trafficking activities.***

***

who knew porn was addicting

A Florida deputy has resigned after body camera footage showed he was looking at pornography when he crashed into a car last year, according to a report. Lake County Deputy Tristan Macomber resigned his position after an internal investigation into the Nov. 6 crash, NBC6 affiliate WESH reported. The body camera footage showed Macomber driving when he suddenly slammed into a vehicle that was stopped in front of him. His airbag deploys before he gets out to check on the other driver, who was stopped for a school bus.***

***

Excellent article about norms and feminism

***For these women, risking everything for the sake of extramarital orgasms with a person who doesn’t love you is not a destructive and selfish impulse to be resisted, but the path to a higher realm of self-actualization. They owe nothing to the world, or to their occupations, or to the people who love and rely on them; certainly they cannot be expected to honor the promises they’ve made if it means denying themselves something they desire. Films like Babygirl are brave in that they acknowledge that women, empowered to have sex like men, will do exactly that—up to and including taking inappropriate liberties in the workplace with their much younger underlings. Where they fail is in pretending that this makes them heroic figures, as opposed to total sleazebags. What equality truly demands of us is not just the license to behave just as badly as men, but to be held to the same standards of human goodness. This is the nature of middle age—when you aren’t too old to start over, but you’re definitely old enough to know better. Eventually, the path ahead of you becomes narrowed by the choices behind you; eventually, you become accountable not just to yourself but to others, too. And if some shimmering possibility presents itself, be it another lover or another life, the truly heroic thing to do is to understand the difference between a possibility and a promise, between a fantasy of what might have been and the deep-rooted truth of the life you’ve chosen—and to gently close the door.

***

Not helping the immigrant community

A man seen in a viral video being confronted and apprehended by Los Angeles residents, and who was eventually arrested by police with an alleged blowtorch, is an illegal immigrant from Mexico, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) sources tell Fox News. Los Angeles police took the man into custody after a group of local residents grabbed him near the Kenneth Fire, allegedly carrying a blowtorch, according to video from Fox 11 Los Angeles.*** ICE sources tell Fox that he is a Mexican illegal immigrant named Juan Manuel Sierra-Leyva. He is in custody due to a probation violation and has not been charged with arson. ***

***

Free Press notes

In America today, there are nearly 1,500 biological men incarcerated in federal women’s prisons. Nearly half of them are sex offenders, according to the Bureau of Prison’s own data—almost four times the rate of the general prison population. Across the country, female inmates have been harassed, raped, and even impregnated by male prisoners they’ve been forced to house with. Today, Free Press reporter Madeleine Kearns speaks to one of the women fighting back: 58-year-old Rhonda Fleming, who is serving a 27-year sentence for Medicare fraud. Fleming says she’s had to share facilities, including showers and restrooms, with at least 10 male felons simply because they identify as transgender. Today, a judge in Tallahassee will hear arguments that the conditions of her confinement violate her constitutional right to bodily privacy. “When you’re most vulnerable, you’re naked in a shower,” Fleming told The Free Press. “There’s no officer monitoring the showers unless some kind of emergency happens, and so at any time, anything can happen to you.” Fleming’s experience is not a one-off. All 29 federal female prisons in the U.S. allow male criminals who identify as women to be incarcerated—a practice that began in the early 2010s under the Obama administration. Trump mostly walked it back; Biden reinstated it. What would a victory for Rhonda Fleming mean for incarcerated women across the country? Read Madeleine’s investigation: “Biden’s Transgender Prison Policy Goes to Trial.”

***

Babylon Bee

***

1st impressions.....

NDIANAPOLIS, IN (KGAN) — A Texas man appeared in an Indiana courtroom Tuesday morning for allegedly stalking and sending sexually violent text messages to WNBA superstar and Iowa grad Caitlin Clark. Michael Thomas Lewis, 55, had his initial appearance where a judge read his level 5 felony charges. "Morning, Mr. Lewis," the judge said after the suspect entered the courtroom. "Guilty as charged," Lewis said.***

***

BB -

***

Policing good news

Excellent column by Olivia Reingold

If you’re a New Yorker, you probably know how Mayor Eric Adams spent part of last Friday afternoon: getting his eyebrows threaded at a salon in Corona, Queens. The now-viral moment was meant to symbolize how civilized the whole area had become in the past 90 days. A few months earlier, locals had complained that this wasn’t the kind of block you’d want to set foot on, let alone visit for a spa treatment. The only massage parlors and salons open for business seemed to be fronts for the neighborhood’s booming sex trade, with police estimating as many as 50 brothels operating in the area. The neighborhood had even developed a nickname: the “Market of Sweethearts.” “It was anarchy outside,” said Ramses Frías, a second-generation Queens native. “People were scared to leave their homes.”

After Frías and other locals held a series of rallies and protests, Adams deployed hundreds of NYPD officers, plus 50 state troopers, in a 90-day crackdown dubbed “Operation Restore Roosevelt,” referring to Roosevelt Avenue, the neighborhood’s main thoroughfare.*** Things began to change in 2021, when the NYCLU and other progressive groups successfully lobbied the state to repeal an anti-loitering law, which they claimed “enabled law enforcement to target Black and Brown transgender women, non-binary people, immigrants, and low-income communities for innocuous behavior.” They referred to the law as the “Walking While Trans Ban.” Frías says the rollback hamstrung police from taking action just as thousands of migrants were streaming into New York, exacerbating the problems mounting on Roosevelt Avenue.***

Prostitutes on Roosevelt Avenue began operating in broad daylight about two years ago. On their way to school, Frías said, kids had to start walking past scantily clad women counting cash. In September, parents at a local elementary school passed a resolution demanding “increased school safety measures.” Among the issues they said their children encountered on the way to and from school: “Open prostitution and illegal massage parlors employing sex workers,” “rampant drug use,” and “organized crime syndicates.”*** From the moment the city announced its campaign to crack down on crime in the area, progressives began to protest. Groups like Red Canary Song, which advocates for “BIPOC, LGBTQIA+, Trans GNC, and Disabled Sex Workers,” claimed to speak on behalf of the people of Queens—despite being co-founded by a Columbia-educated dominatrix (other “core organizers” include a Barnard graduate turned “BDSM practitioner,” a Brown University professor, and a Yale graduate student with they/he/she pronouns). “We demand the removal of state and local troops from Queens,” an October Red Canary Song press release demanded. “These dehumanizing narratives are fabricated and weaponized to justify increased surveillance, perpetuating our community’s precarity through police violence.”***

***

[rosiewitchescottage]

There's a detail here that I haven't noticed before.

Yes. This can indeed be applied to refugees and immigrants.

But this line just brought itself to my attention.

"The strangers who reside with you shall be to you as your citizens;"

We're talking hospitality here, aren't we?

Well that means being both Good Host and Good Guest.

If we welcome people into our country, then we have every right to expect them to behave as good guests.

If one is to regard visitors on the same level as residents, then one can also expect the same standard of behaviour from a visitor as one does of a resident.

I speak here as a British woman with my country dealing with the rape gang scandal.

These ethnically Pakistani men are all born British Citizens.

And yet they are regarding young white working class and Indian girls as fair targets.

We've had many Pakistani immigrants to Britain who have had no problem living in harmony with our Laws and Values.

I'd like to know what went wrong with these men.

"When strangers reside with you in your land, you shall not wrong them.

The strangers who reside with you shall be to you as your citizens; you shall love each one as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I [Adonai] am your God."

Vayikra (Leviticus) 19:33-34

[buttercupkg66]

People are discovering the 2013 court transcript of the "Pakistani grooming gang" case in Britain and it's one of the most disturbing things I have ever read

[rosiewitchescottage]

'Britain is more tolerant of muslim extremists than most muslim countrie... 

https://youtu.be/TORaOZcSbfg?si=PZyegbzprF_h030L

I’m happy to share this, because of the contrast it shows with the multi cultural atmosphere fostered in Mrs Birbalsingh’s Michaela School.

One thing we have in the UK, and we should be fighting to preserve it, is Freedom of Religion.

In our history we’ve had times of religious persecution, and it’s ugly. We shouldn’t allow anyone to bring it back.

Christianity in many forms, Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Paganism are all practiced across the British isles.

And I want that that continue. Yes. I love the customs and traditions of my own childhood and of my ancestors, and want them to go on being practiced here, to be enjoyed by all British citizens.

But I also love that we get to see other religious celebrations and cultural practices that are beneficial to us all. And I want these to be encouraged.

If people have come to the UK because there are dangerous, abusive practices going on in their country of origin, practices that are against British Law, then they shouldn’t have to suffer them here!

And nor should the rest of us. 

I’m perfectly happy to call British Muslims my compatriots. Most of them behave as such.

But as is being discussed here. We have a terrible habit in government and policing of seeing Islamist (political use of Islam) extremists spreading hate speech, committing crimes, like the Pakistani rape gangs, targeting working class girls, White, Sikh, Hindu, the Manchester and other bombers, people having to go into hiding threatened with death, the murder of an MP, the attack on Salman Rushdie etc.

And the police and government aren’t talking about the danger posed by the politics of Islamism, because they’re scared of being called Islamophobic!

So, basically, their own reputations matter more than the victims of these crimes! Well Thanks For Nothing.

Islamophobia is a term I’ll have no truck with.

Because I don’t think it gets to the actual problem that we should be avoiding.

Islam is a religion. No religion or political ideology should be beyond scrutiny or criticism.

Muslims are the people who practice Islam, and the only judgement they should get, is the exact same as the follower of any other religion.

Muslims who practice their faith peacefully and do no harm to those around them. They should have nothing to fear. No one should be attacked merely for being a practicing Muslim. And you won’t hear me say otherwise.

Anyone who does this should have the book thrown at them. Anti Muslim Hate should be tolerated no more than Antisemitism should be.

BUT Islamism is another matter entirely. It uses Islam for political reasons, it fuels terrorists, it aims to establish Sharia Law wherever it settles. It’s totalitarian and full of hate. We shouldn’t have to endure it any more than Fascism or Communism.

No one in Britain should. And that includes our British Muslim contingent.