by Tom Rogers

One of the most important essays to have appeared on this site, in my opinion, and I have no objection to you invoking Thermidor – a fine word.

But I don’t agree with your essay. What I mean is, I think you’re right about Thermidor and the word is very apt for it, but I think your fundamental understanding of what is going on is wrong.

My view (or thesis) on ‘Rotherhamology’ was explained at length on the following thread, in which I managed to fall out with David Webb, but received a measure of support from Ian B: https://libertarianism.uk/2015/01/21/a-quick-thought-on-rotherham/?noamp=mobile

I am proud of all that I said and I stand by it today. In particular, this passage, which I think gets to the root of things:

“The girls were willing. You are just using social work language to explain it from a perspective of victimisation. But OK, you want to deny it. So let’s not go back-and-forth about that. Instead, I would like to reduce the matter to its essentials.

Did the girls go along willingly or not? Yes or no? Let’s get to the nub of this and have a straight answer.

If your answer is ‘No’, then point me in the Report to where it explains how the girls were kidnapped (i.e. taken unwillingly), which is the only logical alternative. Page number please.

Talk of them being cajoled, persuaded, ‘groomed’, ‘threatened’, blackmailed, etc. won’t do. In all such cases, you are conceding that the girls went along willingly. It’s then just a matter of deciding whether they consented to what followed and whether their account of what happened can be relied on. If you maintain they are telling the truth and didn’t consent, then you need to explain why most of them willingly went back for more – by their admission.”

The point being that the Rotherham scandal, much as it may be a Moslem problem, is an expression of feminism, and as such, is really a white problem. Feminism is inimical to sustaining a civilisation; it is a rupture in the male-female axis that forms the basis of any healthy society. White people are doing this to themselves. The young girls involved were asserting their sexuality. The awkward truth is that they selected Moslem men because in our society for the last few decades, black and south Asian men have been built up as the ‘Alphas’ in society (for want of a better expression). White people have stopped believing in their own survival. This dripped into the minds of these young girls, most of whom were old enough to have an interest in sex and seek out men they perceive to be superior males (which is what younger women especially tend to do). White men are burdened by feminism, and ultimately secular Christian, which weaken their morale and resolve. Moslem men are burdened by Islam, which energises and affirms them.

British (and white European) national and racial self-confidence have collapsed. For decades, the university-educated middle class, who always adopt and enforce whatever is the orthodoxy, sneered at racialism and nationalism as déclassé, ignoring that these movements, while at times ugly, are essential bedrocks of functioning, cultured civilisations. Other than on certain marginal fora such as this one, no native Briton in this country is able to publicly assert the vital importance of the reproduction of British civilisation or wider white European civilisation without risking criminal prosecution. No elected politician can do so without facing immediate and strenuous calls for his resignation and ignominy.

Yet the reaction to Rotherham was hysterically emotive, and in my view, at times illogical and irrational, and often from the same people who would gladly silence dissent against multi-racialism. The reason for the hysteria was and is that Rotherhamology is rooted in feminism, which is simpatico with the dominant social and political agenda of dismantling races, nations and cultures. Feminism, especially when expressed pervasively, is a men versus women affair, in which women cast themselves as an oppressed class. The fact that Moslems, even men, are one of their victim groups too can be neatly stepped over. Feminism, like all Leftism, is an outgrowth of Christianity and most educated people in white European civilisation project their received moral standards on to the rest of the world, which is a fallacy, or at any rate an error. Apart from that, it is deeply hypocritical anyway since we live in a highly sexualised society as it is. Morality won’t save us collectively because it depends on a calculation that the rest of the world will do the same and obey certain abstract, spoken and unspoken rules.

In the real world, the Moslems and the other minorities are slowly crushing us and don’t care about our rules or universal morality. The author says that the Moslems have miscalculated. Maybe, but I think they are doing things exactly right if they want to take a large share of Britain for themselves, maybe all of it. Let’s consider: if the author is right and there is a backlash against them, what is proposed? The Moslems and other racial minorities are not small in number. They form a powerful bloc in society and politics and have the advantage of geographic concentration. White British men, burdened by feminism and secular Christian thinking, will not fight a race war. Some will, but I am talking in the general sense. The majority won’t because they have been taught to believe in secularised Christian concepts and they have been taught to be weak and submissive to women. Moslem men have mostly not been taught these things and could demand anything from us now. Especially if they can ally with other minorities, even other races they otherwise dislike or hate.

The English chattering classes expect the rest of the world to act how they believe is ‘proper’, and Rotherhamology and the Jay Report reflect this naive cross-cultural assumption, which I think is rooted in colonialism and the condescension that it imbibed. Interestingly, I think there are attitudinal parallels between the Left and British colonialism, especially the belief in civilising other cultures perceived as unrefined or uncivilised. Pakistani Moslems do not have the same cultural attitudes towards sex and women. In their own way, their culture is as refined as ours, it just fundamentally differs and when the two cultures meet, the stronger culture prevails. Those girls were ‘Pakified’ because Moslem men have been allowed to be assertive and masculine.

[Here is the original comment from 2015]

I would be interested to know how the author (and those, not necessarily the author included, who have joined in the hysteria over ‘Rotherham’) define ‘abuse’? He uses the term repeatedly in the fashion of a well-trained house parrot. I see this as important because all facets of analysis and discussion are predicated on certain ideas and linguistic deployments about sexual behaviour that have assumed a doctrinal character and are implicitly assumed to be valid without further scrutiny or critical examination.

Terms such as ‘abuse’, ‘child sexual exploitation’ and ‘grooming’ are being thrown around like confetti at a wedding, but what do they actually mean? Do these terms in fact mean anything at all outside the juridical constructs of the law courts and proceedings in Hansard? Do they relate empirically in any significant statistical sense?

I agree that adult men who sleep with underage girls are behaving in a vile manner, and in many cases deserve criminal prosecution – especially in the Rotherham case, as many of these girls were without familial support and so could be seen as truly vulnerable – but is there any responsibility on some of the girls themselves? Yes, many of these girls will have been victims of genuine abuse – I’m not doubting it – but can we fairly say this is the case for all or even most of them? I have read the Jay Report and I find the methodology adopted in it wholly unconvincing, if not significantly flawed, and I also found in it the typical (and rather cowardly) tendency to blame police and amorphous officialdom for the wrong-doing of others, always interpreting official actions as reckless or neglectful and slanting the facts accordingly, even when there might be a genuine explanation. But I will not labour that here as my purpose is not a dry, technical analysis or a tour through random anecdotes, but rather to consider thematically certain overarching problems and questions.

I think there are wider implications in a proper critical dissection of all this. If we accept that women (including legally underage but biologically fertile females) do bear at least some personal responsibility for their own actions – including unwise sexual choices – then the issues and questions prompted could be quite different. Instead of this ‘victim-predator’ narrative, what if we assumed as our starting point the position that many of these girls are not victims in any real sense but made choices for themselves and must bear at least some responsibility for their own actions? (I put aside here the technicality of statutory rape and other offences, such as ‘child sexual abuse’, which I certainly don’t condone as they often represent disgusting actions on the part of vile men, but they are legal constructs and are not germane to my area of concern here). I, for one, have yet to be convinced by these neo-Dickensian images conjured up of ‘vulnerable young girls’ in childrens’ homes. I know they exist, but I would also observe that teenage girls tend to be more mature than boys of the same age.

To generalise: we men are primed to be ‘daft’. We innovate, take risks; we’re Nature’s Mavericks. We are here to chase and impress females. Women (girls) by contrast are primed to be sensible. They are the carers and nurturers. It’s a generally-known truism, I think, that teenage girls tend to be more mature than most adult men in some respects, and the gap in maturity only increases when young women fall pregnant. I don’t doubt there has been abuse and suffering, but I also think that many of these girls will have known exactly what they were doing and I’m afraid to say that I am not willing to buy into what I think is the manipulative and highly emotive interpretation put on sexual relations between men and women, a template that has been applied here in extremis. It is much harder to demand that ‘victims’ should take responsibility for their plight, but if we think these ‘victims’ should bear responsibility for their own actions, then a number of narratives associated with this issue change in some intriguing ways. Here I will concentrate on the ‘racial’ narrative, not because I am some sort of froth-mouthed racist, but because of the fundamental importance of genes and identity to the replication of our culture.

Going back to the second (alternative) narrative suggested above, if you accept it as the headline analysis, then it’s no longer: ‘Pakistani Muslim men rape young white girls’ so much as ‘Young white girls choose to sleep with Pakistani Muslim men’. I actually find this second, alternative, version of the racial narrative much more disturbing in its own way. The first is tragic and disturbing enough, but the second narrative arguably has still deeper and more far-reaching implications for society: socially, culturally, morally and racially (genetically). It’s not a cute reversal if you think, first, we should live in a society based on personal responsibility and second, if you believe that much of the concepts and language being deployed are actually designed to: (i). patronise women and remove from them personal responsibility; (ii). sexually terrorise men; and (iii). expand the remit of certain interventionist groups in society – especially middle class professionals like Alexis Jay, who now seem to make up our only indigenous industries.

One last heresy: let me discuss briefly the role of Muslims in this; or rather, in the interpretation of this, since it seems there is no doubt that Pakistani Muslim men have played a starring role in this particular example of dark ‘news pornography’. The popular interpretation is to blame Muslims qua Muslim/Islam and also to ascribe much of the responsibility to the ubiquity of political correctness and the fear of offending an immigrant-heritage community and so on. I am not convinced by these explanations for official inaction. First, and to take a step back from the problem, I believe that Muslims in the West are being used as scapegoats for a great many problems that have multifarious and complex causes. They are easy scapegoats because they are, and look, very different to white Europeans, and also because mass (revolutionary) immigration is a grave wrong being inflicted on our civilisation, not to mention deeply unpopular – and Muslims represent its most prominent footsoldiers from a European point-of-view. But Muslims are being used and exploited in this respect. There are undoubtedly issues with their intergration into European society because almost-all Muslims are Middle Eastern (or Asian in some other sense) rather than European. The significance of this is denied, sometimes dismissed outright – even ridiculed – and so ordinary Muslims are left to somehow resolve these existential issues. How does a Muslim man relieve the sex drive in a society in which he might not be very attractive to most white women and might not be able to have sex before marriage or conspicuously enter into intimate relationships with Muslim females? One answer is young white girls with no moral values living in northern English towns devastated by neo-thatcherism. A happy coincidence is that these areas are where most of the young Muslim men live.

To me, this is fundamentally racial, but my questions are different to those of the far-Right. I must ask: Are we Europe or are we a kind of consumer mass of people with a muddled identity sharing a Continental geopolitical space? Is our ‘white European’ identity being quietly replaced with another because a significant (and growing) minority of our women (including underage girls, it would seem) choose not to sleep with white men? Is that what is meant when the do-gooders and official liars talk about dealing with these ‘challenges’? Not so much normalising rape as normalising civilisational (racial/genetic) extinction. Is that the truth? The hysteria from the far-Right and other quarters is part of a natural (and understandable) reaction to this, but it is predicated on a denial of the plain facts in front of us. I could go on with these questions, but I lack the time to be truly exhaustive.

No doubt someone is going to accuse me of being an apologist for paedophilia or male predatory sexual behaviour – or whatever is the latest kernel of anti-male hate or theme-of-the-month. Well, perhaps not here as this is a thoughtful/insightful forum, but just in case, for those in the cheap seats – no, I am not. I do not feel the need, either, to project such insecurities. My interest is in facts.

Related posts:

Reply to Peter Tatchell

Powered by YARPP.