RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/rape-gangs-liberal-silence

Few issues expose the self-blinding of the Western progressive left more than the sexual violence waged against working-class girls in the UK by predominantly-Pakistani grooming gangs. The scandal, long ignored by polite society and actively buried by both law enforcement and politicians, only broke into a broader American consciousness when Elon Musk began posting about it on X. The king of the techno-barons is no friend of the working class but, on this issue at least, he has successfully played the part of a working-class champion far more convincingly than his progressive counterparts.

The scandal continues to horrify not just because of the systemic sexual violence waged on children and teens, but because it reveals the deliberate sacrifice of vulnerable population groups who in theory should be able to count on the protection of the administrative state. Instead, institutions operating under a calculated bureaucratic plan offer poor and working-class adolescents up as sacrifices to the altar of multiculturalism.

For over a decade in towns like Rotherham, Rochdale, and Telford, young native British girls—some as young as eleven—were groomed, drugged, raped, and trafficked by networks of immigrant men from East Asia. The young girls were first love-bombed with gifts and flattery, then lured into private spaces—plied with alcohol and pills—then passed between grown men who raped them repeatedly. Sometimes lines of abusers waited their “turn” to ravage these teens in a manner that merely describing here would provide the reader with images so harrowing that they’re impossible to forget.

Girls who physically resisted their rapists were beaten and threatened with death. Some resistors were threatened with guns, others doused in gasoline with the captors threatening to burn them alive. Some were thrown from moving vehicles. If all this weren’t insane enough, the families who reported the crimes were firebombed by the perpetrators. Those who continued to contact authorities had their windows smashed and often faced further threats of arson.

For years, UK authorities resisted doing anything to address this mass sexual terror inflicted on children. Why? Well, every educated Western liberal person knows exactly why. Because some things are unsayable. To acknowledge the horrific crimes committed against young girls would also mean acknowledging the ethnic and religious backgrounds of their attackers, which might in turn suggest that not all foreign cultures are automatically compatible with the basic norms of Western civilization. And then what?

Faced with this dilemma, institutions built to protect the innocent instead protected demonic sexual predators because acknowledging the ethnic and religious dimensions driving the abuse was deemed unbearable. In many cases, police first classified the victims as “child prostitutes” or dismissed their trauma as little more than reckless teen behavior. Social services often implied that these teens “consented” to their gang rapes or that their abuse was not criminal, but rather the result of poor “lifestyle choices.” On a number of occasions, the teenage victims were arrested for being drunk in public while their abusers were let off without punishment. Local whistleblowers were silenced. Parents who begged for help were warned not to stoke communal tensions.

These were working-class Brits—without lawyers, media platforms, or political connections—and they were left hung out to dry merely for getting caught up in an episode embarrassing to elites’ multiculturalist ideology.

The episode wasn’t just a failure of UK policing. It was a reflective moral collapse of our pseudo-multicultural epoch and its double standards—what Eric Kaufmann calls its commitment to “asymmetrical multiculturalism.” In other words, the notion that modern institutions hold two standards for assessing behavior—one for natives and another the “POCs” presumed to be victims of Western colonialism, and who are therefore not responsible for their own actions.

Whether it’s the treatment received from hiring committees or social service agents, one standard is provided for natives (and those with pale skin), and another for those with darker skin tones or immigrants coming from outside the West. The latter are labeled as lacking agency and therefore deserving of greater leeway—if not outright preferential treatment—even when their behavior is obviously negligent, anti-social, or even criminal. The same phenomenon is perceptible on a larger scale when it comes to acts of large-scale terror and mass murder committed by terror organizations and states.

In an age where bigotry and prejudice have been deemed the worst sins imaginable, the grooming gangs episode illustrates the extent of the self-mutilation that Western societies are now prepared to tolerate in order to avoid the reproach of ostensibly sinned-against social groups. Allowing large-scale violence and rape against over a thousand under-age girls would in most times and places be an obvious sign of state collapse. However the British administrative state appears to believe that it can retain its legitimacy—or even increase it—by allowing the commission of those crimes by populations that it deems to be “marginalized.” What sense does that make?

In this reading, British state bureaucrats understand their own legitimacy to stem not so much from the ability to protect the innocent, including children, from horrific crimes, but from their loyalty to a hierarchy of virtue among the population groups they administer. Throughout the grooming gangs episode, state bureaucrats were exposed as being less concerned with sexual violence against children than with paternally disciplining and belittling working people who complained about the rapes of their daughters by migrants.

The result of this systematic bureaucratic anti-white and anti-working class discrimination against the native British population is almost incomprehensibly horrifying, in a Swiftian way. Gangs of sexual predators were allowed to operate with near-impunity for years on end while at least 1,400 (and possibly as many as 2,000) working-class girls had their lives destroyed. All because elites feared that properly investigating these crimes would validate “racism” and feed inconvenient “nativist” political narratives.

Violence, especially when enabled by bureaucrats, fascinates because we’re taught to believe violence—even in genocidal form—is an irrational crime, driven by a lack of emotional control. The horrors of the Holocaust continue to mystify for this reason. Nazi violence was committed not from rage or desperation, but in cold, bureaucratic service of an ethnopolitical ideal. Armed with IBM machines and meticulous tracking systems, thousands of civil servants solved every logistical problem necessary to make mass murder scalable. German ideologues enlisted an entire bureaucratic class to annihilate those deemed lesser races in pursuit of a future utopia they believed both natural and just. Doctors and nurses volunteered to serve in the SS and other branches of the Nazi extermination machine in numbers far in excess of their percentages in the population at large. Perhaps the Nazi bureaucrats’ task was unpleasant, even gruesome. But in their minds, they were performing acts of social hygiene that would benefit society long-term.