Everybody has now heard of the horrific things done to thousands of British girls by Pakistani rape gangs. At this point, nobody can credibly claim they don’t know. The tragic descriptions of the rapes and the violence are all over social media. Curiously, the people who were enraptured by Gisèle Pelicot have nothing kind to say about the underage girls who fought so valiantly to denounce the rapists, to give evidence, to defend their sisters.
What I don’t get, though, is this. Why? Why was this allowed to happen? Why was this silenced for over a decade? Why were the British compliant with their own destruction?Why are so many of them still trying to make this a conversation about Elon Musk and not the victims? What is compelling them to do it? All of the social workers who returned the raped girls to their rapists. The police who charged the girls and not their torturers. The judges who imposed sentences on the journalists investigating the abuse. The MPs and the journalists who lied outrageously. Why did all of these people – and there are many, many of them – side with nasty, despicable men and not the violated girls?
No explanation anybody has given makes sense. “They wanted to avoid tarnishing the idea of multiculturalism.” OK but why? Why are they so attached to this idea and not some other?
Clarissa's Blog 
They were on the take. In cash or in kind.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Why are they so attached to this idea and not some other?”
Why were people so attached to communism even after the horrific failures of those trying to achieve it?
It’s not about rationality it’s about people who tied their self-image and self-respect to follow an ideology not knowing how to respond when the ideology failed.
Multiculturalism is the 21st century’s Marxist struggle and people will tolerate any ‘temporary’ inconvenience or failure as long as they can convince themselves that it will lead to a ‘better’ future.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wait, is this the same normalcy-bias problem as people arguing that kids *need* to be bullied in school “so they can learn how to deal with the real world”…?
LikeLike
“is this the same normalcy-bias problem”
It’s more a pseudo-religious belief (like Marxist revolution in the past).
IINM P.D. James was the first to identify ‘anti-racism’ (another term for multiculturalism) as a religion in the 1986(!) novel “A taste for death” (not one of her best as a mystery but interesting side characters).
Anyhoo… the quote is: “Annecroft Comprehensive certainly had a religion all right, fashionable and, in a school with twenty different nationalities, expedient. It was anti-racism. You soon learned you could get a way with any amount of insubordination, indolence or stupidity if you were sound on this essential doctrine. It struck her that it was like any other religion: it meant what you wanted it to mean; it was easy to learn, a few platitudes, myths and slogans; it was intolerant, it gave you the excuse for occasional selective aggression, and you could make a moral virtue out of despising the people you disliked. Best of all, it cost nothing… If you had to have a school ethos to give the illusion of togetherness, then for her money anti-racism was as good as any. And whatever she might think about its more absurd manifestations, it wasn’t likely to lead you to see visions in a dusty church.”
The problem is that while it might work in small closed part-time environments like schools…. it doesn’t scale up to be viable replacement for the real thing at a society-wide level.
LikeLike
What I don’t get, though, is this. Why? Why was this allowed to happen?
Because the multicultural anti-racist feminist pro-LGBTQ credo is the current new faith to which EVERYBODY must adhere, on pain of being excluded from society as a heretic. Anything – including allowing the worst crimes to take place if needs be – is considered preferable to being targeted as a racist misogynist sexist homophobic transphobic “beast”. Anything. The risk otherwise is that you’ll be turned into a non-person.
This new faith – which is basically Gramscian Neo-Marxist theory infused with postmodernist thought in a slight variation of flavours adapted to local requirements – has replaced the old faith of the West: the rationalist tolerant religious vision of a world where all human beings are considered equals in dignity on the basis of a shared humanity. This is a Western idea, which originated in Christianity: no other society has produced anything like it, anywhere, at any time.
All societies are founded on a number of widely shared, silently understood, mutually-agreed-upon “values”. The values on which Western civilisation was founded have been undermined deliberately and not so secretly dynamited away over the past SIXTY years and now the crows have come home to roost.
Of course, not everyone is on board with the new creed and many people, the educated and the not so well educated, have been aware for some time of what was going on and have tried, more or less openly, more or less actively, to resist the trends gnawing away at the foundations of Western societies. But the fact is that mainstream culture is determined/directed by the elites, and the elites in the West have been almost completely captured by the new faith.
I don’t know if it’s too late to do anything. Personally, as a Christian, I know that I’m called upon to bear witness to my faith, to resist evil and to stand firm against the Powers and Principalities that are at work in the destruction of the values on which the West was founded. The war against Ukraine and the one against Israel are but two examples of the destructive forces that I’ve mentioned and I can only pray that G*d will give me the spiritual force to withstand them all. Amen.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sadly it was and continues to be bloody nasty in group/out group behavior. The predators see the girls as kafirs, infidels, lessers, undeserving. While because of the British class system, the powers that be including senior police, judiciary, social workers, and the media consider the girls as “not us” …and note that the areas are impoverished “man deserts” where social housing rules allow few if any fathers. Basically there was and is absolutely nobody to protect pubescent girls.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Because they are complicit. Both in terms of their income, tribal alliegences, and personal habits.
LikeLike
I feel the post-WWII liberal consensus has something to do with it. Because of the evils committed by the Nazis, it became verboten to have any identification with your people (if you’re white), or to be a nationalist (if you’re from a western country). So the modern western societies cannot even answer the basic question: “Who are we?” “America is an idea” is drilled into you right from childhood.
As a politician/police chief/etc., if you don’t have a sense of kinship with people who share your heritage and cultural values, saving them from foreign rapists becomes way less of a priority than your career aspirations. Deracinated societies are especially vulnerable to powerful people who measure the health of countries by their GDP line charts.
LikeLiked by 2 people