Rotherham brings out the rage.

Posted on By pukeko

The conversation in the car was about social media. The son pointed out that facebook is only useful to remind him of things, and I suggested that twitter was useful for writing haikus and trolling. He replied that trolling is what 4chan was made for.

But in NZ an election is being trolled, and the left seem to want to destroy. Nothing new here, just move along.

There are consequences to this political correctness. The privileged subclass can get away with anything: be they rock stars and DJs in the 1970s or Pakistani pedophiles in Yorkshire. Because racisss. It’s about time we retired that meme, and called criminal behaviour criminal.

Up to 1,400 children were sexually exploited in Rotherham. Children as young as 11 were trafficked, beaten, and raped by large numbers of men between 1997 and 2013 in Rotherham, South Yorkshire, a review into child protection has revealed.

How could this have happened? A clue is given by the report’s authors, who state that ‘several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist’.

‘I didn’t want to appear racist’ is truly the ‘I was only obeying orders’ of our time.

Racism has become so hysterical a subject that it has crowded out all other moral concerns, including in this case the concern to look after children. (One doesn’t often get the chance to praise one’s own profession — so it is worth pointing out that, if it weren’t for some courageous reporting, notably in The Times, the full scale of the Rotherham scandal may never have been widely known.)

Of course it is right to be disgusted by racial hostility or aggression, but when the war on racism makes the subject such a taboo that child abuse is overlooked, then it is time to ask questions.


Nothing new here. There have been similar instances of organised and long-term child abuse by groups of Muslims going unpunished due to fear of claims of racism in Rochdale, Oxford, Derby, Telford and Keighley.

What is changing is the level of fury expressed not just about the rape and enslavement of the victims, nor just about the dereliction of duty on the part of social workers and police, but also about the efforts of the media to downplay that the perpetrators were Muslim. I picked the three links above because all three stories allowed comments. It is remarkable how similar the comments in the left-wing Guardian are to those in the right-wing Mail. Sarcastic, sad, jeering, hesitant or spitting righteous anger; the tone varied but outrage over that particular type of dishonesty was expressed again and again. The usual media procedure is to substitute “Asian” for “Muslim”, or for “Pakistani”, which would give the game away to anyone with a basic knowledge of the Indian subcontinent. I should say that given the relatively low numbers of orientals in Britain it is normal in British casual speech to say “Asian” when one really means “South Asian”, but British Sikhs and Hindus greatly resent the literal racism of the use of the term “Asian” in the context of this series of distinctly Muslim crimes. In some of their stories the BBC has gone further, from blurring relevant details to excising them. These BBC stories simply speak of events “in Rotherham” – even though the independent inquiry that started this firestorm of comment specifically says that fear of being denounced as racist (religious and racial prejudice are deliberately lumped together) was what kept the social workers silent. Instead Rotherham social workers devoted their child protection efforts to taking away their foster-children from a respectable couple on the grounds that they were members of UKIP.

Probably no one who who has ever had a hand in censoring mention of Islam from news reports will ever read this. But on the off-chance that someone relevant does, or in the faint hope that the general idea if not my particular words might reach such a person by indirect means, I would like to ask you, Ms or Mr Media Person, a question. Apart from the question of honest reporting, how do you think the strategy of silence and euphemism is working? Is the British public more or less likely to distinguish between the criminals of Rotherham and the next random “Asian” they see because the press has for so long refused to distinguish? Has it been successfully concealed that a common factor in these abuse rings has been that some Muslim men see non-Muslim girls as “white trash” and unworthy of respect?

It is interesting to see who is getting into professional schools in the UK. Some minorty and immigrant groups are doing very well. From North India, the Punjab. Last time I attended a talk on why the psychosis rate is high in immigrants (it’s immigration not race) I talked to the (Sikh, I think) professor who gave the talk. He said that most Indian parents encourage their kids to work hard, but the Islamics tell them to study the Koran hard.

ANd the Koran says that the non Islamists are there to be exploited. Note the issue of religion: I don’t know of Hindu or Sikn or Buddhist rings among the minorities.

It’s all about power. It is about keeping the enemies you want in the narrative, and ignoring everything else. It is not about justice, and it certainly is not about protecting kids. The police are raiding Cliff Richard’s house, for heavens’ sake, because he’s asexual and was around in the 1970s and is therefore suspect. But the tendency in the UK for Indian and Pakistani Muslims to predate on vulnerable children is not allowed to be discussed.


So why aren’t feminists talking about Rotherham, the biggest rape scandal in the West of at least the past 50 years? Because it doesn’t fit their narrative. In the feminists’ little brains, rape has to be about white men in power exploiting women and minorities, because that’s what fits their patriarchy myth. In reality, white men rape minority women at very, very low rates. White on black rape, for example, is nearly nonexistent, according to the FBI.

Feminism isn’t really concerned with women’s equality, or even sex crimes. Just as feminists looked the other way when Bill Clinton’s peccadillos and “rapey” behavior were exposed, they can ignore over a thousand underage victims of a sex-trafficking ring. What feminists really care about is power, whether it comes at men’s or women’s expense. They will not break ranks with their allies in this struggle for political dominance, even if their allies are raping women left and right. They don’t care.

Eventually, some feminist will feel obliged to mention Rotherham. It will be interesting to see how she dances and tiptoes around the subject.

If you go to the Twitter hashtag Rotherhamabuse you get the reaction in the UK. It is visceral. It is rage. And it is aimed at the cathedral that allowed this, the elite who cry racism, and the subculture of Islam that allowed it.

Yes, this stuff is disturbing. But when you beat someone too long, do not be suprised at the reaction back.

Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

More importantly, patterns matter. If a group predates on girls, warn them about that group. Yes, it means that the decent Pakistanis get shamed. But that may lead to them disavowing the rapists among them.

4 thoughts on “Rotherham brings out the rage.”

Comments are closed.