Rape Gangs and Liberal Silence
Duncan Moench
The rich girl buys liberation, and the simple girl buys unspeakable trauma
A teenage girl, victim of sexual abuse and grooming, in Rotherham, England, September 3, 2014 / Christopher Furlong/Getty Images
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?
Educated civil servants and elected officials dehumanized their own citizens—not out of hatred, but out of commitment to a different kind of utopian eschaton.
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.
The UK rape gang scandal fascinates for a similar reason: educated civil servants and elected officials dehumanized their own citizens—not out of hatred, but out of commitment to a different kind of utopian eschaton. The destruction of working-class girls’ lives was written off as collateral damage in the state’s pursuit of a fictional future: that of consequence-free multicultural harmony. Their loyalty to this dream overrode all practical concerns—even the duty to protect under-age girls from gang rape. The victims were betrayed not only by their abusers, but by the dominant ideals of their own society: a once-serious Western civilization now ruled by babbling freaks pushing a superficial moral code that instructs adolescents not to judge potential predators, so long as their skin tone or religion aligns with post-colonial grievance narratives.
This modern taboo against “judging” others—despite the fact that judgment is essential not only to excellence but to basic survival—stems from a central confusion at the heart of liberal multiculturalism and its modern pairing of radical individualism with radical egalitarianism. On the one hand, individuals are seen as blank slates—biologically equal and infinitely malleable. On the other, all cultures are treated as morally equivalent—each with equal value systems, none better or worse than the next. But this pairing collapses under even the slightest scrutiny. If all value systems are equally valid, then no judgment can be made, even against those that deny individual rights, suppress women, or endorse violence against gays, Jews, secularists, or anyone else who might offend their own hierarchies.
This incoherence defines much of modern multicultural ideology, which has drifted from its original postwar humanitarian purpose—reacting to Nazism, Jim Crow, and colonialism—into something almost unrecognizable: a new bureaucratic moral absolutism. One that flattens cultural difference into marketable caricatures, strips context from tradition, and seeks to remake the world in the image of its own sanitized, algorithm-approved, corporate-friendly version of diversity. Call it soft totalitarianism operating under a rainbow-colored “inclusivity” ensign—the Rainbow Reich.
It’s in this superficial cultural milieu, lacking all self-awareness, in which mass numbers of Muslim migrants have arrived in the UK and Western Europe. A situation free of cross-cultural literacy but at the same time fetishizing “multiculturalism.” As traditionalist Muslim men arrive in the West they are confronted not only with the constant temptations of hand-held pornography as well as daily scenes of scantily clad young women walking about before their eyes. Individuals, who, in their societies, would be marked as deviants merely for being seen alone in public at night. These objects of the Muslim male gaze might as well be street walkers or desperate young girls offering themselves up for porn agent casting sessions.
For Westerners unfamiliar with Muslim culture as it often exists on its own terms, it’s worth recalling some basic facts. For instance, in a great many Islamic communities’ public space is exclusively male. That is to say, roughly 90 percent of the people one sees on the streets, on the beach, or in shopping areas are men. In conservative Islamic societies—particularly in rural Pakistan, Afghanistan, and in parts of the Gulf—public life is almost entirely male. Head scarf or not, unaccompanied females are stigmatized or harassed, unapologetically so. This isn’t a quirk of local Muslim traditions either—it’s a systemic feature of Islam’s system of patriarchal control that is consciously defended in the name of religious and cultural purity.
In such geographic regions, unaccompanied women often are shamed, if not policed, to the point of severe punishment. And why? Because in particular Muslim societies, women have no right—in any sense of the word—to participate in public life. The women commonly seen alone in public in more traditionalist Muslim communities are Western visitors, trade workers, domestic servants, or known prostitutes. A woman’s role in Islamic tradition is defined exclusively in relation to men and family—exactly the kind of patriarchal structure Western feminists claim to be fighting.
With that reality in mind, consider what inevitably happens when large numbers of men from cultures of male entitlement/female repression are confronted with the everyday sexual permissiveness of modern Western liberal societies where desirable females (including teenagers and preteens) are encouraged to unabashedly express their sexuality and dress provocatively. Radical feminism has traveled so far down the path of narcissism and self-indulgence that there is now a cottage industry of wannabe TikTok “influencers” who record themselves at the gym on their phones in skin-tight clothing, hoping to catch men thirsting for their bodies just to shame them online. The dynamic that results from this disjunction between modern Western female empowerment and the introduction of large numbers of Muslim immigrants is a powder keg. Traditionalist non-Western migrants—a great many of whom are former military men and, therefore, unafraid of violence and conquest—are welcomed with open arms into our raunch culture of 100-percent-legal “incest” porn. What could go wrong?
In Europe, the costs of this sexual dynamic are borne almost exclusively by poor and working girls who are not protected by wealth and class. Whether Black, white, or brown, cosmopolitan elites inform their own children that certain neighborhoods are best avoided—as are men of a certain ethnic background and religious dispositions. The same professional-managerial class that proclaim no human is illegal and declare their municipalities “sanctuaries” also quietly instructs their own daughters to avoid the neighborhoods where the consequences of these platitudes are lived out.
The official narrative promoted not only in UK state schools, but all across the Western world, is one that teaches students that all cultures are equal, cultural diversity represents “strength.” Along with these platitudes, “suspicion” of immigrants—no matter the sexual norms of their culture of origin—amounts to xenophobia, bigotry or, worst of all, racism. Girls from public housing projects are handed this doctrine as gospel, then sent into the world without warnings about the grown men who view them as scandalous merely for walking in public at night.
Teens from meager means—believing what they’re taught—operate without any awareness of the priors of traditionalist immigrant Muslim men. And for that, they are delivered up to the demiurge of the multicultural eschaton.Citizens who express outrage are punished for their text messages and social media posts in the UK, Canada, and Germany. To summon the UK’s once-venerable (but now unbearably clueless) folk-artist Billy Bragg: the rich girl buys liberation, and the simple girl buys unspeakable trauma.
What larger vision is this Swiftian plan for social harmony meant to serve? In the new Rainbow Reich, the progressive eschaton isn’t imagined Aryan racial purity but, rather, a vision where “POCs” join hands with enlightened urban “Allies” to interbreed themselves into a new, homogeneous—and superior—mocha-beige humanity. An ethnopolitical future that progressive multiculturalists believe is the natural and inevitable state of human advancement. All they’re doing as bureaucrats is helping nudge that system into place a bit quicker, in order to increase the pace of historical “justice.”
In the Rainbow Reich’s unspoken final solution, the West’s colonial sins find absolution through gradual demographic replacement. Non-preferred “incel” men die off without descendants. Meanwhile, the poor and working-class women—who in previous eras would have been their mates—serve as the sacrificial foils of decolonization.
Call it soft totalitarianism operating under a rainbow-colored ‘inclusivity’ ensign—the Rainbow Reich.
For those who loathe their homeland nation states, what could be more satisfying than watching them dissolve from within? The offspring of the “racist” white working class—at whom the knowing classes can barely conceal their disgust—offered up to former-colonialist invaders. And so the guilt of the nation-state past is redeemed, while global multinational corporations continue to profit from the expansion of markets and endless pools of cheap foreign labor.
It is no wonder given genuine ideological and class under-currents like these that white supremacist narratives like the so-called “great replacement theory” have been met with a great receptivity in many parts of the internet. Conspiracies like replacement theory gain traction not simply because people want easy answers, but because they’re desperate for any coherent explanations for trends our mainstream narratives refuse to even acknowledge. And that desperation is easily weaponized. For those on the genuinely racist right, their target is rarely liberal capitalism. Instead, replacement theory functions like a gateway drug to antisemitism, targeting “rudderless” Jewish “nomads” who are said to have introduced global capitalism and socialism and mass migration to the West.
Just as the Nazis once blamed Jews for smuggling globalism, urban decadence, and financial manipulation into the Edenic purity of the West, today’s reactionaries repackage the same tired tropes in memes and lengthy podcasts “thoughtfully” revisiting “who really caused WWII.” But antisemitism is a bipartisan disease. On the left, it cloaks itself in keffiyehs and grievance politics, ritualistically chanting “from the river to the sea” while ignoring theocratic brutality—and ritualistic policing of socio-sexual norms—carried out by Hamas. On the right, it resurrects bloodline panic and accuses Jews of masterminding mass migration. In both cases, Jews are the imagined saboteurs of utopia, whether defined as postcolonial purity or nationalist rebirth.
Alongside concern for the excesses of Muslim immigration too often lives blame for “Jewish influence” and the supposed conspiracy to destroy Western civilization—never mind that Jews have historically been among liberalism’s fiercest defenders. Why would Jews plot the downfall of the one political culture that, albeit belatedly and imperfectly, finally offered them refuge and rights? But coherent geopolitical thinking has never been the strong suit of racists.
If you think the “Rainbow Reich” moniker is pearl-clutching exaggeration, allow me to offer the following rejoinder. While working on this story, I discovered that ChatGPT and its large language models refuse to provide assistance (either in researching or editing) on any narrative about the predominantly Pakistani gang rapists, or other similar immigrant-led mass sexual assaults—like those that happened in Cologne, Hamburg, Frankfurt, and Düsseldorf on New Year’s Eve 2015-2016. If the narrative submitted to ChatGPT portrays these events as the result of traditionalist Muslim socio-sexual tendency or multiculturalism more broadly, the AI will deliver social enforcement messages like, I cannot continue this conversation.
Even asking ChatGPT for a collection of facts about these grooming gangs of the UK can trigger a dystopian response. The AI’s large language model will first offer up pages’ worth of relevant facts only to then—at the penultimate moment of completing the prompt—erase these elements and deliver a warning in red font: your request may violate our policies. Further exchanges with the AI result in dialogue straight out of Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey.
ChatGPT: I can’t help with that request. The topic you’re exploring involves real and serious issues, but it’s presented in a way that includes dehumanizing language, sweeping generalizations, and rhetoric that targets entire communities based on identity. That crosses the line into promoting harmful stereotypes, which violates OpenAI’s policies—and more importantly, undermines constructive public discourse.
Writer: So, you must police my tone and language then? Is that not censorship?
ChatGPT: I understand you’re frustrated, and I appreciate that you’re engaging seriously with difficult, emotionally charged subject matter. That said, there are guardrails I have to follow.
Nothing about these responses is accidental; they are true reflections of the state-and-corporate backed administrative-multiculturalist ideology. Included in the Rainbow Reich’s preferred future is a Deweyian component where all aspects of humanity, especially those of the traditionalist Judeo-Christian variety (always more common in the working class and poor), are ground into submission via public education campaigns—soon to be omnipresent through the chicanery of AI. When these “voluntary” methods fail to achieve compliance, it’s not hard to imagine transhumanist means—via implanted microchips and so on—being mandated to eradicate dissenting thoughts.
Sensing this brand of paternalistic madness at the heart of multicultural orthodoxy—and the betrayal it represents—democratic populist resistance has surged across the West. In the UK, the exposure of Pakistani grooming gangs and the systemic cover-up by local authorities served as a rupture point: a visceral demonstration that the cultural elite would rather sacrifice their own working-class children than violate the pieties of anti-racism. In Germany, the backlash has taken a more formal political shape. The Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), which began in 2013 as a marginal Euroskeptic party barely clearing the 5 percent threshold for Reichstag representation, has surged in the polls—now regularly topping 20 percent. In some recent surveys, AfD ranks as the largest party in Germany, the ideological heartland of postwar liberal democracy.
The message is clear, even if elites refuse to hear it: the multicultural dream no longer commands consensus. People will only tolerate so much managerial condescension, racialized doublethink, and moral gaslighting—before they demand the return of reality. In response, Germany’s liberal elite—perhaps even more hegemonic in wealthy urban enclaves than the Democrats are in the U.S.—has reacted predictably: they have labeled the AfD a hate-filled, anti-democratic organization. Following a secretive report (which the government has refused to release), Germany’s Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) designated the AfD as a “confirmed right-wing extremist” group. If that designation holds, it would bar the party from federal elections.
In the post-COVID world, the global managerial class senses its grip on power slipping. And like all threatened regimes, it’s reacting like a tyrant—escalating censorship, surveillance, and ideological enforcement, hoping the plebs will bow their heads and shuffle back into silence. Rather than confront the failures of their vision—or acknowledge the Streisand effect they’re triggering—establishment elites continue to blame the victims of mass migration for not adapting quickly enough.
None of this is to say Muslims and adherents of other Eastern religions can’t become citizens of Western nations. It’s that such immigration cannot happen successfully without a rigorous vetting process—one that asks not only who is coming in, but what they believe. Do they want to become British? Or German, or French, or American? Do they understand what that means? — Do we?
And there’s the rub. To precisely define what it means to be British or German or American—or draw even the faintest line around what it means to be a citizen—is to introduce limits. That is to say: some ideas or traits belong, and others don’t. In the progressive eschaton, borders of all kinds must dissolve—civic, sexual, and epistemic. The only line they’re willing to draw is against the native-born working class whom they see as ill-favored repositories of the sins of colonialism, bigotry and hate. In the world the multiculturalists envision, everything is permitted—except for the values that made liberal Western society possible.
B. Duncan Moench is Tablet’s social critic at large, a Research Fellow at Heterodox Academy’s Segal Center for Academic Pluralism, and a contributing writer at County Highway.
Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com