https://x.com/jonatanpallesen/status/1875253382992085163?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/15/child-sexual-abuse-gangs-white-men-home-office-report
There is so much wrong with this. Most obviously that a UK newspaper is blatantly trying to mislead people as to the nature of the rape ring problem in the UK. Of course the notion that there are a significant number of "sexual abuse gangs", regardless of their ethnic background, doesn't seem to be a big concern at all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWP9LxnYmy4
https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1875054148489732250?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
UK police asking if a 5 year old had consented to sexual abuse. What in the hell is going on in the UK?
https://www.rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk/your-rotherham/girl-by-age-of-16-id-slept-with-100-asian-men-court-told-4323693
1. Nice victim blaming by the Rotherham Advisor.
2. Nice job trying to hide the fact that the Asian men were Pakistani.
https://x.com/msmelchen/status/1875229883044901288?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
For whatever reason Musk has jumped on this rape ring story and has been writing and forwarding relevant tweets on the story. Yet somehow, the thing that has certain brits pissed off is that Musk is exerting pressure on the UK to deal with the problem, not that there is a decades long history of Pakistani men raping young girls and getting away with it.
https://x.com/msmelchen/status/1875229883044901288?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
https://x.com/astor_charlie/status/1874924677820461073?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
If I was one of the victims, I'd be suing the UK government, the Labour party, the MP's and officials personally, and the media for how this has been handled.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/new-updates/zakir-naik-courts-fresh-controversy-says-rape-murder-accused-can-be-forgiven-if-/articleshow/114119663.cms?from=mdr
I though that we'd gotten past the "she was wearing..." defense.
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1874668504835817491?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
https://x.com/msmelchen/status/1874945562912670024?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
https://winteryknight.com/2025/01/07/how-the-uks-secular-left-government-covered-up-sex-trafficking-of-children/
24 comments:
I haven't read any of the links, yet, but I just wanted to note how the situation in the UK is just a step or two beyond our own. The "progressive" left in this country is not much different, though I believe our Constitution still prevents them from pushing us over the cliff as they did the UK. They're cancelling of opposing views is far more aggressive than it is here, with some people being arrested for praying silently in front of their abortion mills. Silently. As in, not speaking out loud. It is only the honesty of the praying person which can indict said person.
Anyway, the language issue ("asian" instead of "Pakistani") is no different from prohibiting terms like "illegal alien" here, or never identifying a non-white perpetrator of a crime as a non-white person, nor printing a suspect's name if it is muslim or in any way foreign.
And of course, what Tommy Robinson has reported illustrates the width and breath of the UK government turpitude, which seems to extend from the federal down to the local level.
I agree that the difference in legal/constitutional systems will help to some degree. But the push from the left to cancel anyone who addresses these issues honestly and the refusal to properly vet immigrants will (likely) place us in a similar situation at some point. And folx like Dan will whine about Islamophobia as being the bigger problem than rape. Just like the UK.
Technically Pakistanis are Asian, so it's an excellent example of using a term that is technically accurate, to obfuscate the Truth. Yet somehow the Dans of the world revere these paragons of journalistic integrity.
Yeah, the UK government bears significant responsibility for this problem continuing as long as it has and to the degree that it has.
The whole thing started because no one wanted to be considered racist when saying who was doing the raping. 23 years!!!!
https://patriotpost.us/articles/113229-uks-migrant-grooming-gangs-and-the-ensuing-outrage-2025-01-06
https://gellerreport.com/2025/01/its-only-taken-23-years.html/
Glenn,
Because obviously it's worse to be racist than it it to facilitate 23 years of raping children.
What I find most troubling is the complete refusal of anyone in power in the UK to simply acknowledge that this was wrong and that they're going to fix the problem.
Absolutely, Glenn. We see it here as well.
Craig...what I find troubling is this refusal to not give a flying rat's behind over how a people...in this case, Pakistanis...would respond for exposing the worst among them as the scum they are. To have their religious leaders organize protests against those who seek to inform the people of what's going on, and then knuckle under to those religious leaders, is rank cowardice of the progressive leftist kind. I can't imagine allowing, say, a Polish leader in my country whining about discrimination against Poles after someone exposed criminality by or from within the Polish community. I'd speak out against such a person daring to do so in my name and so fraudulently.
Art, I agree that it's troubling that there is no one in the UK Muslim/Pakistani community that is acknowledging how bad this is. If the broader Muslim community in the west is going to have any legitimacy they would need to vocally support assimilation and condemn those who engage in these sorts of behavior.
What I think might be worse is that the global left wing is either silent or quietly supportive of the rapists, and while condemning Israel for defending itself, refuses to condemn this sort of behavior in the various cultures that practice it.
Craig,
So long as this disparity exists, I cannot see that denying muslims entry into our country isn't the best policy. Again, it's sad for those who don't adhere to the cultural evils of the muslim world, but it is not for us to risk our own in order to welcome in those who might only be faking it in order to gain a foothold here, much like the birthright citizen people. I really don't care how the world, or our own "progressive" imbeciles, view us for daring to protect ourselves from a culture anathema to ours.
I understand that you hold that position. I don't begrudge your position, nor am I trying to suggest that you should change that position. I find that your position has various factors that concern me and therefore I cannot agree with your position. That you "cannot see" or "believe" something is not convincing.
Good, because I'm not basing anything on how people see us. I'm concerned that we don't discard things that have made US culture great (innocent until proven guilty, guilt by association, personal responsibility, and the like) permanently in order to solve a temporary issue. I'd rather not waste bandwidth on implementing a simplistic policy that will likely not be implemented for years, when we could focus on factors that provide more immediate relief.
My point being, that in the absence of some really compelling evidence (more than "I believe" and "cannot see", I see no reason to accept your "Muslim ban" blindly.
Well, there's fourteen hundred years of islamic barbarism which justifies the policy. It's not merely a matter of personal belief, but of personally acknowledging a reality. How we as individuals regard others is one thing, but it is not a concern for our government which must put the welfare of its citizens as of paramount importance. Thus, that is accomplished in this instance by barring entry to a specific people act in a uniquely barbarous manner which is compelled by their cultural ideology. Again, not at all a religious thing, but recognizing they are not like any other people. They are the exception to the rule. With other peoples, it doesn't carry the same risk to presume that, say, even a person from mainland China is necessarily communist acting on behalf of the communist Chinese ideology. But because the muslims put their "religion" as beyond questioning, they have earned the marginalization by all other non-muslim countries and cultures.
And by the way, what I "cannot see" or what I say I believe is not whimsy in the slightest, but that which is based on facts plain for all to see. Look at that before you speak of what is or isn't convincing, not blowing me off with this dodge.
I understand the history. What other group barbarism do you impute to individuals? Our European ancestors engaged in barbarism hundreds/thousands of years ago, do you impute that barbarism to yourself? US slavery was certainly barbaric, do you impute responsibility for that barbarism to anyone other than those who engaged in it?
I've made this same argument when Dan tries to impute guilt to us for what some random wacko might have done. You don't assume that an individual is automatically guilty based on their association with a particular group.
Under your new construct, the brave Iranian woman who protested uncovered would not be allowed to immigrate into the US. Under your "Muslim ban", the hundreds/thousands of Afghans who helped the US military (and their families) would not be allowed to be brought to the US for their service.
My point is simple, and one you likely agree with in every other circumstance. That people should be judged based on their individual actions and speech, not not because they are part of a group. I suspect that you get annoyed when people do that to you. (You are a conservative, white, man, therefore you must believe X.) I daresay it probably pisses you off to be blamed for something you haven't done, and don't necessarily support. Yet, this is exactly what you are advocating.
There are just over 2 billion Muslims worldwide. We know that millions of them are violent, extremists, who wish to continue the Muslim conquest of the world. Those millions should be dealt with, harshly. Yet to judge and condemn hundreds of millions of people based on the actions of a % of that group, seems problematic and simplistic. It's eerily similar to the arguments used to intern US citizens of Japanese descent during WW2.
I want to be clear. I'm telling you that I disagree with you on the best solution to a serious problem. I'm telling you that, in the absence my specific concerns being specifically addressed, I'm unlikely to change my view based solely on what you "believe".
I'd argue that Communism is an excellent parallel to this discussion. Communists argued that they were engaged in a war against capitalism and that their goal was to dominate the world. Yet, in the US, we didn't deport communists for being communists. We jailed communists who engaged in specific activities, we didn't get rid of every communist, nor did/do we prevent communists from entering the US. You seem willing to give someone from China exactly the kind of consideration I am advocating, yet deny it to someone who is Muslim.
It's strange that you, who frequently puts your religion beyond questioning, would criticize those of another religion for doing what you do.
What you "cannot se" or "believe" may be based on whatever you want. It's simply not a convincing argument, nor does it address my concerns.
I'm not "blowing" anything off. I'm advocating a potentially different approach, and not seeing anything from you that can't be accomplished in other ways.
Again, the horse isn't going anywhere. I'm open to arguments based in US law and the US constitution as to why a ban on immigration based on religion is legal and constitutional. I'm less persuaded by, what you've offered and your insistence that no other possible option exists.
"Our European ancestors engaged in barbarism hundreds/thousands of years ago, do you impute that barbarism to yourself? US slavery was certainly barbaric, do you impute responsibility for that barbarism to anyone other than those who engaged in it?"
Your point in the first example is weak due to having to go so far back in the past to try and find a parallel. Your second was not a universal sentiment as proven by the Civil War, and was thus corrected by our own selves. islam is pervasive and has infected the hearts and souls of all who are part of it.
"You don't assume that an individual is automatically guilty based on their association with a particular group."
Not every antifa member has attacked people or property, nor has every member of the mafia murdered. But no one would prefer any antifa or mafia member live within fifty miles of them because of what the culture of those groups promote.
"Under your new construct, the brave Iranian woman who protested uncovered would not be allowed to immigrate into the US. Under your "Muslim ban", the hundreds/thousands of Afghans who helped the US military (and their families) would not be allowed to be brought to the US for their service."
You assume that which is not in evidence. My policy begins with a muslim ban. That simply means a specific hurdle a muslim applicant must overcome. The pit bull is regarded as most aggressive. Why must we presume a particular pit bull is not as a general practice? Prudence dictates we regard all of the breed with the same degree of suspicion based on known history of it. I'm not willing to risk my wife or kids get bitten in order to dispel any concerns of "pitbullphobia".
" I daresay it probably pisses you off to be blamed for something you haven't done, and don't necessarily support."
I don't belong to any group known for posturing in order to deflect suspicion so as to better my ability to strike when the time is right. Lying in the service of allah is SOP for muslims. This means they are deserving of even greater scrutiny and higher suspicion. Not my fault it indicts the lot of them.
"It's eerily similar to the arguments used to intern US citizens of Japanese descent during WW2."
A superficial parallel, because there's nothing inherently suspicious about being a Japanese person, even during a time of similar "religious" fervor among the Japanese citizen.
Again you speak of what I believe as if what I believe is mere fiction or fantasy. Even commies who wish to rule the world aren't lying in wait as terror cells do, and aren't constantly murdering people in the manner so common to islamists.
"It's strange that you, who frequently puts your religion beyond questioning, would criticize those of another religion for doing what you do."
But I don't put it beyond questioning! It's beyond question to me that it's true beyond questioning...so to speak. But I don't require that anyone convert or die. I don't require that the whole world reject their beliefs or traditions or practices, unless those beliefs, traditions or practices promote the murder or enslavement of those who won't convert.
" What you "cannot se" or "believe" may be based on whatever you want. It's simply not a convincing argument, nor does it address my concerns."
Yeah, yeah...you keep saying this as if you've dismissed a mere flight of fancy, rather than an acknowledgement of a reality so many have died ignoring. Your "concerns" are far less compelling given the true risks involved in pretending that culture is no more than a few bad apples, rather than a vast majority of like minded individuals. Those likely to be successfully assimilate are rare indeed, though I admit they exist. Too bad they have to jump through extra hoops in order to be recognized, but they're self-determination doesn't justify putting our people at risk.
"I'm not "blowing" anything off. I'm advocating a potentially different approach, and not seeing anything from you that can't be accomplished in other ways."
Yes. You're blowing off the unique nature of this beast, pretending it won't bite you in the ass because you can read hearts and minds. As such, you're advocating for the status quo which isn't tenable. My "approach" is merely the starting point, not the entire freaking policy, but it recognizes realities your advocacy ignores. I don't want "innocent" people to be put out. But "innocent" people from other nations aren't as important to me as my own people.
US law and the US Constitution is focused on the relationship between the US government and the US people, not those who are not citizens. Who gets in and on what basis is totally at our discretion. We're under no legal obligation to admit anyone. I've asked you to present US law or what in the US Constitution covers this and you've not done it yet.
So you're less persuaded by the reality that the muslim culture is unique to an extent we've not seen from any other culture. That unique culture demands unique responses, and you aren't willing to provide any which reflects that unique nature. Are there any other possible options which reflects that unique nature effectively without putting our people at risk? Nothing that you've offered thus far. You want to pretend mine is a religious thing. It's a Death To America thing. A Death To Jews thing. It's a thing unique to these people and their culture.
"Yeah, yeah...you keep saying this as if you've dismissed a mere flight of fancy,"
Yeah, yeah...you keep saying this as if it's something I've actually done (imputing behavior to me that i haven't engaged in), and ignoring that I have not once tried to tell you that you should change your beliefs or accept mine.
As far as individual Muslims having to "jump through hoops", that's exactly what I suggest. That individual Muslims be judged based on their individual actions and not based on the actions of others.
"Yes. You're blowing off the unique nature of this beast..."
No, I'm not. I'm unconvinced that your sweeping, simplistic, overreaching, discriminatory, suggestion is the only possible/viable option. This attitude of yours that your option is the only possible/viable option and that anyone who thinks differently is wrong a priori, is why this is pointless.
" pretending it won't bite you in the ass because you can read hearts and minds."
You see, when you make shit up like this and pretend that it represents reality, you lose credibility. Maybe it's best to stick with what I've actually said. Unless you are arguing that any vetting process of Muslims is merely reading hearts and minds. Of course, you are also reading hearts and minds. You're just assuming the worst of every individual, based solely on the actions of some in their demographic group. Or, you're just choosing to assume the worst of individuals you've never met.
"US law and the US Constitution is focused on the relationship between the US government and the US people, not those who are not citizens."
ArtI.S8.C18.8.7.2 Aliens in the United States.
"In the decades that followed, the Supreme Court maintained the notion that "once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders."2
Eventually, the Supreme Court extended these constitutional protections to all aliens within the United States, including those who entered unlawfully, declaring that "aliens who have once passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law."3 The Court reasoned that aliens physically present in the United States, regardless of their legal status, are recognized as "persons" guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.4 Thus, the Court determined, "[e]ven one whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or transitory is entitled to that constitutional protection."
"As such, you're advocating for the status quo which isn't tenable."
No I', not. I've been quite clear about what I AM arguing for elsewhere. It's not the "status quo".
"So you're less persuaded by the reality that the muslim culture is unique to an extent we've not seen from any other culture."
No. I'm not persuaded that Islam is the only culture in the last 1,400 years which has been bent on domination.
Of course it's a religious thing. Their religion is the basis and foundation of their "culture" and why the "people" behave the way they do.
Actually neither of my examples is "weak". The point is whether or not it is reasonable to impute the bad actions of others to those in their demographic group. As for slavery, it was legal in the US, should that be imputed to us today? Or should the ending of slavery be imputed to us? In any case, the imputation of individual acts to those who haven't engaged in those acts is the issue. You seem fine with that in this case. I'm not.
Regarding your ANTIFA/Mafia example. There's a difference between preferring that they not live close to you ans passing a law that forbids it. As someone who grew up near the prominent Mafia family, and went to school with the kids/grand kids, I have no fear of the Mafia living near. As for ANTIFA, I'm armed they can FAFO if they want. (I say this after a mob body was found within sight of the house I grew up in and a mob guy was murdered in his garage next to a friend's house. NBD)
I guess it pisses you off so much to be asked about being blamed for something you haven't done that you chose to avoid the question and repeat yourself.
Again, the arguments to intern the Japanese sound eerily similar to your arguments, that hindsight proved the anti Japanese arguments wrong might be something to consider.
"Again you speak of what I believe as if what I believe is mere fiction or fantasy."
No, this is false. I speak of you offering what you "believe" as if it is unassailable fact and as if it is all that is necessary to "prove" something. It's not. Note, I've never even hinted that what you "believe" is wrong or that you should not believe it, merely that it's not persuasive.
"Even commies who wish to rule the world aren't lying in wait as terror cells do, and aren't constantly murdering people in the manner so common to islamists."
Given the reports of Chinese military aged males entering the country illegally, and the Chinese attempts to make inroads in the third world/producers of strategic minerals I'm not sure I'd be as confident in this as you are.
So you don't put your religion beyond questioning, but you kind of do.
The word Islam means "submission to Allah", which really sounds like a religious declaration not a cultural declaration.
Art,
The horse is still here, beat away.
In all seriousness, why not just kill 'em all? In the US 24-48 hours where Muslims are fair game? Bomb Muslim countries (except the oil fields) out of existence? Why screw around? We all know that if we deport Muslims, they'll just go back and continue to plot against us, coming back to destroy civilization. So why leave them alive?
"Actually neither of my examples is "weak"."
Yes they are, because they do not present as parallels to this unique group of people. You want to cite our history of slavery, but we've changed that ourselves. We're no longer trying to promote that institution and all which it means for black people. islam continues to promote the destruction of non-muslim peoples or their enslavement, beginning with the Jews. We have no obligation to ignore that on the possibility that a few of them aren't down with that crap. And given the "religion's" teaching about lying to benefit islam, we have even less justification for pretending that any of them are truly the nice guys they might appear to be. Thus, to begin on the premise that muslims are a group of people who hate the rest of the world, we are more than justified treating them as such based on 1400 years of history.
I have no problem in passing law which restrict the ability of known members known criminal organizations from taking up residence. I think it's a very good idea to cast out the unrepentant sinners, and these are among the worst. BTW, the Italian mobs weren't out to take over the world and force everyone to be in the club. They didn't go about blowing themselves up in order to kill as many non-Mafia people as possible. Indeed, because of the way they operated, few people knew they lived in the same towns until a body was found and tied to them. islam doesn't operate anything like that.
"I guess it pisses you off so much to be asked about being blamed for something you haven't done that you chose to avoid the question and repeat yourself."
It's a silly question of irrelevance. But in my youth, I was profiled on several occasions and had to deal with the fact that I could continue in what was my sartorial style or reject it for that which didn't evoke criminal behaviors common among the "hippies" of that time, just as bikers bring about suspicion based on their looks alone. No. I didn't like it, but understood why I had to endure it. I eventually did change my look as adulthood compels better thinking. But through it all, I was not representing people who engaged in mass murder, or a desire for ethnic cleansing or for forcing ideologies upon others. It's not a parallel.
"Again, the arguments to intern the Japanese sound eerily similar to your arguments, that hindsight proved the anti Japanese arguments wrong might be something to consider."
But just how similar were the Japanese of that time to muslims over the last 1400 years? Did they ghetto-ize themselves into "no-go zones" as muslims do, acting as if they are autonomous with their own laws for the Japanese, or were those forced in internment camps mostly just Americans of Japanese ancestry...people who sought to assimilate fully into the American culture? How many of those people were like sleeper cells awaiting orders to act on behalf of Imperial Japan? There's no parallel there, either.
"I speak of you offering what you "believe" as if it is unassailable fact and as if it is all that is necessary to "prove" something."
I can't help that you choose to regard my expressions of belief as unassailable fact, except that what I believe IS unassailable fact. But it's stated as a premise, not proof of itself. And the facts which undergird my beliefs should be persuasive if facts mean anything at all.
"Given the reports of Chinese military aged males entering the country illegally, and the Chinese attempts to make inroads in the third world/producers of strategic minerals I'm not sure I'd be as confident in this as you are."
Oh, I'm totally fine with extra restrictions on Chinese entry as well. But I think it might be easier to separate the wheat from the chaffe in this case. China's actually much more civilized despite its ruling elite.
"So you don't put your religion beyond questioning, but you kind of do."
People question my religion all the time. What they can't do is find justification for presuming it's in any way a threat like islam is...not within its teachings.
"In all seriousness, why not just kill 'em all?"
You call that "seriousness"?
If they're contained within their own borders, which can be done the more civilized countries deny them entry, they'll likely kill themselves. But if they're content with rejecting the Brotherhood of Man, I don't much care what happens to them. It's on their own heads. They deserve no aid of any kind so long as they do nothing to purge the evil from their midst. Keep in mind, so many of those outside of Gaza/West Bank celebrated Oct 7. They did as well Sept 11. We, on the other hand, purged ourselves of the institution of slavery (though progressives are working hard to allow it to once again flourish). They need to clean their own house before hoping to live in ours.
Well, OK if you say so. Unless you've chosen to make of my examples something beyond their intended purpose. The examples I gave were only examples is so far as they demonstrate people being blamed for something they didn't do. Withing that limitation, they serve quite well, and the "uniqueness" factor isn't relevant.
So we agree. There should be a law preventing those who are part of a criminal/terrorist organization from entering the US. The point remains, we historically have not imputed responsibility to people for acts they haven't engaged in.
Again, the parallel is that we chose to place innocent Japanese (US citizens) in concentration camps based on the actions of others. The parallel of blaming. restricting, or punishing one person for something that have not done is the extent of the parallel. That you are arguing to impute the actions of one subgroup of people to another subgroup of people, is all that I am comparing.
The US citizens of Japanese descent were (for the most part) innocent of the actions that got them interned. They were not given due process, but were interned for the actions of others. In much the same way that you are arguing that Muslims who have done nothing wrong, and do not advocate for any wrong doing, be denied due process and prevented from immigrating based on the actions of others.
How is it so difficult for you to understand that US law does NOT punish people for the actions of others. In this case, there is a due process for legal immigration (obviously illegal immigration should be treated differently), which you want to deny people based on actions engaged in by others.
The Chinese coming across our borders are all military-aged men, and China owns HUGE amounts of property, especially around military installations (because fools sold the properties to China), so they are almost as dangerous as Muslims coming in, because they will be insurgents in any combat w/China.
"except that what I believe IS unassailable fact."
Thank you for making my point.
As you haven't offered any "facts" that would justify excluding people from legally immigrating to the US based on the actions of others, I fail to be convinced.
FYI, although you've never dealt with either of these examples. Your proposed orules would automatically exclude those Afghanis who risked life and limb to help the US military in Afghanistan, based solely on the fact that they were Muslim. Seems pretty heartless and callous to me. Or your proposed rules would automatically exclude the young Iranian woman who disappeared after protesting without the mandated covering. To use a couple of real world examples.
Interesting double standard given that the stated goal of communists has historically been to eradicate capitalism.
Yes, if all Muslims are as evil and pose such an imminent threat to the very existence of the US and Western Civilization, why not just kill them all. Why allow them to exist in their home countries, infiltrate illegally, and work to further a Muslim conquest of the world?
Look, keep beating if you want, but if you can't argue against the actual points I've made maybe it's best to leave it alone.
Glenn, excellent points. But, despite that, Art is not advocating that we prevent any and all Chinese immigrants from legally attempting to enter the US. I agree that the sale of property to China should be examined closely, and that we should do everything possible to prevent Chinese military aged men from crossing our borders illegally, and send them back if we catch them. It seems that Art doesn't share your concern about the Chinese because he things they're "more civilized" or something.
Again, I advocate for the most stringent border controls possible and the harshest possible punishment for those who cross illegally. Where I have concerns is advocating for the exclusion of an entire ethnic or cultural group without regard to their individual actions.
If this was a matter of extra scrutiny of those from countries that are known for terrorists, cartels, or conquest, I have no problem. But excluding people without due process, is not something I can get on board with.
Post a Comment