The New Neo

Yes, we already knew some of what is revealed in the recent report issued by British MP Rupert Lowe on the so-called “rape gangs” that exploited British girls for decades. To illustrate, note that I wrote my first post on the subject in 2015, and in it I quoted this:

The sex-trafficking ring in Rotherham may well be the worst in the West ever, or so one would hope. British officials have now identified at least three hundred suspects in a crime syndicate that raped and trafficked underage British girls for years, while local police ignored signs and clues for years…

It was already known that the perps were almost exclusively what the Brits call “Asian men” – in this case, Pakistani – and the victims were underage white girls, mostly poor and often neglected. So, what’s new?

It’s the stunning scope of the abuse and the extent to which the system of police and social services, tasked with helping the girls, ignored or often exacerbated the problem. The initial abuse was really only the first step for many of these girls and families.

The numbers are staggering. A summary:

Here are eight essential quotes from @RupertLowe10’s Rape Gang Inquiry.

1) This was a nationwide, not merely local, phenomenon.

“…that this was never a series of isolated local failures. It was a coordinated, nationwide pattern of organised child sexual exploitation that repeated in town after town, city after city, from the far north to the south coast.”

2) The scale was enormous, more than anyone dared to think.

“The scale of the crimes committed is staggering. It has been previously established that, at the very least, 250,000 young white girls have been subjected to repeated rape, gang rape, trafficking, torture, pregnancy, forced Islamic conversion, and lifelong trauma. The true number is probably higher.”

3) As has been reported, the vast majority of perpetrators were Pakistani Muslims.

“In court records and official inquiries, around 87% of those convicted in these group-based child sexual exploitation (‘CSE’) cases bore distinctively Muslim names… Dr. Taj Hargey, an imam with the Oxford Islamic Congregation, believes the true proportion of gang members who are Muslims to be around 95%.”

4) Vulnerable girls were targeted using a consistent method.

“Organised networks of perpetrators built coordinated operations that transported victims between locations, supplied them with drugs and alcohol, recorded abuse for distribution and blackmail, and passed girls between multiple adult men.”

5) The police, and other institutions, knew what was happening and ignored it.

“Police forces ignored repeated reports, criminalised victims instead of perpetrators, destroyed evidence, and allowed known rapists to walk free on bail. Social care services undermined protective parents, placed children in trafficking hubs inside children’s homes, closed cases despite clear indicators of exploitation, and retaliated against whistleblowers. The NHS recorded genital injuries, multiple sexually transmitted infections in children as young as 13, pregnancies caused by rape, and suicide attempts, yet discharged victims back to their abusers without safeguarding referrals or trauma care. Schools observed older men collecting girls at the gates, heard disclosures of rape on school premises, and responded by excluding victims rather than protecting them.”

6) Those in these institutions did so because they were afraid of being called ‘racist’.

“Political correctness, fear of accusations of racism, and fear of losing electoral support from certain demographics have taken precedence over the protection of British children.”

7) Parts of the foster and orphan care system became exploitation hotspots.

“Children’s homes became trafficking hubs where staff failed to stop older men collecting girls at night. Local authorities often returned children to unsafe homes and placements despite repeated disclosures of grooming… Social care across England systematically enabled organised grooming and the rape of children. Children’s services, local authorities, foster carers, children’s homes, and independent units repeatedly returned vulnerable children to known risk.”

8) Multiple offenders explicitly linked their treatment of these girls with their own religious and cultural beliefs, and the girls’ white ethnicity.

“They were taken to houses, flats, restaurants, and hotels where they were raped repeatedly by groups of men, tortured, filmed for blackmail, and told they were “white trash” or “kuffar” who merited punishment.”

I haven’t read the actual report; it’s over 200 pages long. It can be found here, if you care to wade through it. I assume that summary hit the most salient points, but I hope to read the report soon or at least skim it heavily. In the meantime, here are some of my thoughts and questions (the full report may answer some of the questions, however):

(1) Was this multi-culti virtue-signaling run amok, or some even greater evil on the part of British authorities?

(2) Note that there were whistleblowers, so not everyone was a cowardly enabler. But there were “retaliations” against whistleblowers, and this almost certainly had what in the law biz is called a “chilling effect” on further whistleblowing.

(3) What finally changed and resulted in the news coming out?

(4) And what of Starmer? This tweet mentions that Starmer himself let off 13,000 of the perps.

(5) Will there be any further consequences now, or will the whole thing be a case of, “we’ve aired it and it’s time to move on”?

Some quotes from the report can be found at Ace’s. Here are some:

The behaviour is deeply tied to tribal structures prevalent in parts of Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Middle East, North Africa, and Somalia:

– Family honour is primarily vested in the conduct, modesty, and virginity of girls and women. Strict codes require obedience, covering, and restricted interaction with outsiders. Breaches within the community trigger severe sanctions, including honour killings or collective retaliation by male clan members.

– When the target is a non-Muslim girl — particularly White British girls perceived as unguarded, dressed in Western styles and lacking male protectors — the risk calculation shifts. No retaliation is expected from the girl’s family or community, so some young men feel emboldened to treat her as property and then approach, assault, groom, share among the group, and sell her services.

– This proprietorial view of women escalates into organised networks that traffic girls across regions. Impunity fuels the cycle: initial assaults without consequences create a perception of Britain as a place where such behaviour carries no risk, turning vulnerable girls into commodified products.

I would say it wasn’t just a perception of Britain as a place where such behavior is risk-free. The perception was correct for a long long time.

More:

While the foundational system is tribal rather than purely religious, Islamic elements provide ideological justification, communal shielding, and strategic expansion. Perpetrators sometimes hide actions from families, mosques, and imams because the behaviour brings disgrace to the community. Yet remorse toward British victims is limited because non-Muslim girls are not viewed as fully human individuals deserving protection, but as unprotected outsiders available for abuse without moral consequence. This fosters widespread silence within affected communities.

The Inquiry evidence points to a fundamental clash of worlds. Across the West, our historic respect for the individual has, thanks to mass immigration, been overpowered by the more primitive attitudes that prevail elsewhere, according to which group membership matters first and foremost. The elite obsession with diversity has invited the latter to take advantage of the former. Scare-words like ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘racism’ have been deployed to exploit the good will of Western host societies, paralysing investigation and enforcement.

Again, there’s nothing really new there – except for the scale of the horror. And horror it was.

There’s also the class issue; these girls were not from rich families. They were disposable, according to the politicians, sacrifices to the need not only to virtue-signal as a non-bigot, but to get the votes of the growing population of “Asian” voters.

I see no indication that the present government in Britain will change anything, and I’m not even sure that a replacement on the right would do much. Democrats here are fully capable of similar enabling, although I don’t think the problem here is anything like it was across the pond. Here it seems to take the form of winking at massive fraud and theft of government largesse, and the red cities and states are not immune.

What a terrible mess.

NOTE: In 2008 I wrote two posts on cultural and moral relativism. I believe this one is particularly apt. An excerpt:

But somehow the idea that we cannot, and should not, judge other cultures at all has taken hold in recent years; not just in anthropology but in the West as a whole, and especially in our school system. The proper name for this is moral relativism, as opposed to cultural relativism. This phenomenon is a combination of a decline in our own previous attitude of celebration of Western civilization—and an emphasis instead on its sins, its mea culpas—combined with a romantic Rousseauvian attitude toward the other, of which the “noble savage” is a familiar subset.

One of the reasons that judgment of other cultures has been nearly abandoned is that one of our highest values has become that of tolerance. But tolerance was only meant to mean that we not look down on others merely because of the fact that they are different from us. It does not mean we need to tolerate their destructiveness, their hatred, or their intolerance—the latter of which should always define the limits of “tolerance,” or tolerance would become a value that would lead inevitably to its own contradiction and destruction.