England’s Easy Meat

Focusing on reports of sexual slavery in Rotherham alone down-plays the extent of the criminal culture in question. As an extensive report by the Law and Freedom Foundation entitled ‘Easy Meat: Multiculturalism Islam, and Child-Sex-Slavery‘ details, it’s part of a pattern of behavior that extends to the entire United Kingdom and the rest of Europe.

Having read both the Rotherham report and this one, the Rotherham report is much less damning, but it is what is being picked up by the British press more vigorously than it has in the past. The latter paper also details how journalists and columnists who have attempted to unearth the issue (even mostly-orthodox leftists) have been relegated to less prestigious papers over time. My guess is that it is easier to portray the problem as a localized issue with a small segment of the bureaucracy rather than acknowledging that it is a systemic issue.

To repeat, it’s not an issue limited to “1,400 victims” in one town, but has spread throughout the entire country (and the rest of Europe) over a period of more than a decade.

This is supported by the ‘Easy Meat’ paper, which describes this pattern of public relations undertaken over the last couple decades.

Because bureaucracy tends to act not for its surface purposes, but to protect and expand its own interests, none of this behavior is shocking. It is what should be expected of bureaucracy. It is not even a scandal. It is precisely how a right-thinking person should expect bureaucracy to behave.

Ironically, blaming the problem on political correctness or fear of consequences for appearing racist is completely off the mark. Blaming the problem, which is a pervasive practice of enslavement of non-Muslim girls for profit, on a specific bureaucratic doctrine misses the root problem.

It is not even a problem with Muslims, who are only behaving according to their laws and traditions. Muslims are going to behave in this way because it is their culture to behave in this way. It is mandated by their holy texts and reinforced by generations of Islamic scholarship. It’s also incorrect to place it as a Pakistani issue, because it’s a core aspect of Islamic law shared throughout the Islamic world.

Another misconception corrected by the report is that it’s mostly ‘trash’ girls from broken homes who are targeted. In fact, many of the girls are from intact, middle class families or better.

Most people in the older generation of England and America don’t really comprehend how dissolute moral life has become for the younger generation. Many people willfully push themselves to ignore the behavior of their daughters, especially if they’re well-to-do and respectable.

The root problem is the gross ignorance of the legislating class, of the criminal incompetence of the most prestigious universities, and of the overall political structure of modern Britain.

That is a problem that can only be solved through the most terrible means imaginable, and far be it from me, an American whose ancestors (mostly) fled or were driven out of England centuries ago, and have only lived in England during a few short periods, to lecture British people about how to handle their problems.

It would be wonderful if the problem was merely that the English-speaking ruling class was devious, wicked, and ingenious. Unfortunately, it is devious, wicked, and stupid. There was no grand design behind this enormous political error. It happened due to feebleness of mind and of heart at the country’s top. It would be wonderful if it was merely a problem of wickedness, because in that case, a few hangings could resolve the issue.

In some cases, the cause may be more sinister. As detailed in the report, Oxford-educated Mehdi Hassan has been recorded using terms like ‘kafir’ to refer to ordinary Britons, to no career consequences. Characters like him infest the country, and indeed have many analogues in the United States. Hassan is a biographer of Ed Miliband the leader of the Labor Party, giving a hint as to his position within the British system.

James Delingpoole, in exile from the Telegraph at Breitbart, writes about another Muslim official implicated in the enormous cover-up.

The parallels to the Soviet infiltration of the US in the 20th century can be drawn, but the scale and character is necessarily different

The problem is more like a decline-and-fall problem, in which the upper crust has transformed into a scab, and hangings just exacerbate the chaos and poor leadership rather than providing opportunity for a better class of emperor.

What’s interesting about this issue is that it is a clear example of a modern state that has largely ceased to exist, and has ceded some of its core functions to invaders that have been peacefully invited into the borders. The British police are not sovereign on the streets. The gangs are sovereign within their territory, regardless of whatever the maps say. This is a miniature of the greater world crisis described by Henry Kissinger of the state system.

Even in the best possible light of stating that there is a capacity for the authorities to intervene, but no will for them to intervene, in the terms of war, the gangs are the force in control, and the law of the British state has no sway over substantial swaths of its territory. If the will of the British state has been broken by the gangs, then it is the gangs in control of their territory and not the state. The British press and the British officials have admitted that there is no will to exercise control and to stop the ‘polite’ slave raids from taking place right outside the walls of the official buildings of the British state.

The state is further frightened that its control will be broken by other entities other than the gangs. It is less frightened of ceding sovereignty to the Muslim gangs than it is of ceding sovereignty to the imagined populist gangs of White soccer hooligans.

This dynamic also mostly fits within the narrative of 4th Generation war theory, and could be used to teach about its concepts. The bureaucracy perceives itself as besieged and threatened by the native stock.

The British state is terrified not of the sexual enslavement of tens of thousands of its girls, but is explicitly terrified of vigilante behavior that threatens its franchise on violence. It is particularly frightened of opposition organizations like the EDL, (the mostly defunct) BNP, and UKIP.

The chief problem with this failure of Anglo-American domestic policy (invade the world / invite the world) is a failure to understand the history and character of foreign cultures and religions. This failure to understand is roughly analogous to the solipsism of Marxist-Leninist academia, which spent so much time agonizing over a world of pure theory that it neglected to spend much time studying human history, culture, and geography.

Because it holds a basic, inviolable assumption that all people are of roughly the same character, and that their history is irrelevant, it can’t handle the complexity of real problems that arise due to human differences.

The only way that a person can believe in the existence of ‘modern secular Islam’ is to be wholly ignorant of the Koran and hadith. I know that at least some of this is taught in university in a double-talk sort of way because I learned about it first-hand in university going over the primary sources in question.

The idea that Islam could be transformed into a progressive force, much as Christianity has, has been attempted at enormous expense throughout the Middle East. It will be very difficult to put this concept to bed.

It’s important, as I’ve written before, to not consider this behavior as the expression of some oddball post-modernist expression that isn’t ‘true Islam.’ It is the mainstream of its own history. What is not in the mainstream is secularism, which is arguably an aberration in the Western nations as well.

Page 298 of the study sums up the problem:

Yet the multiculturalists want to pretend that they glory in diversity, whilst secretly believing that there is no such thing as truly diverse values – the unspoken assumption of multiculturalists is that all people, all over the world, and throughout all of history, have held the same beliefs as western European liberals of the last 50 years. They praise diversity and multiculturalism, but cannot really see beyond their own enlightenment ideology: they think that, ultimately, all the world shares their values.

What happens when events contradict this belief is that the liberals tend to tunnel away from the uncomfortable observation. The people who bring up the message are marginalized, with their careers targeted for retribution.

When authors like Dan Simmons used to write in these terms, I once considered them ridiculously paranoid, even with the knowledge of Islam’s history. I figured that it would be inconceivable for Westerners to commit suicide in such a way. However, it’s happening, and the prospects for reversing it don’t seem positive at this time.

Both David Cameron and Angela Merkel have attempted to signal a new policy that sanctions Muslim groups that do not avow support for the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, the core doctrine of what Moldbug calls ‘ultra-protestantism.’ To me, this seems unwise.

The only people who care about the UDHR are people from the scabrous upper crust, and even those people only pretend to care.

As the authors of ‘Easy Meat’ describe, sex slavery is just Islamic behavior. It is not ‘extremist Islam.’ It is mainstream Islam. There are some good reasons as to why there is so much ‘prejudice’ against Muslims among Europeans. It has to do with centuries of slave raids, warfare, and occupation in Southern Europe, Central Europe, Eastern Europe, and Spain by the bannermen of Islam. That’s a long record of fighting with few interruptions.

Modern liberalism tends to start history at 1930, with some brief detours for a few paragraphs about a few older wars. It has trouble understanding that, even in primitive foreign countries, older history is still quite influential. It even has trouble understanding how older history influences its own mores.

This is a poor-quality map of Ottoman territory at the peak of the empire:

And of course, the Moors ruled most of the Iberian peninsula (Spain) until the reconquista completed over a period of several centuries. It did not finish until 1492. Yes, 1492. These should not be obscure facts. But, owing to the low standards even at Harvard, Princeton, Yale, and Oxford, they are now obscure facts for millenials.

If you’re going to engage with Islam, you have to understand at least vaguely what it is. I don’t think permanent war with the entire world population of Muslims is a good idea, because I’m not completely crazy. What is needed is an approach based in an acknowledgment irreconcilable cultural differences. I don’t believe that we can impose heaven on earth. Muslims will continue to rape each other and everyone around them so long as there are Muslims on this planet. The political approach has to be to keep them killing each other instead of killing people that we care about.