Which Is Worse: Gang-Rape or Racism?

Posted on | May 9, 2012 | 26 Comments

British teens must be grateful their rapists weren’t victims of racism

“Individuals opposed to Party rule are selected as targets of disapproval, usually to the point of demonization. Criticism usually extends to allegations of personal corruption, wickedness, or barbarism. Terms used to vilify Party opponents are formulaic, seeming to draw from a lexicon developed for the purpose; there is little if any verbal creativity in criticism of Party-designated targets.”
— David G. Muller Jr., American Thinker, “A Leninist View of the American Media,” March 26, 2009

“Truth is great and will prevail if left to herself … she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.”
— Thomas Jefferson, 1786

Suppose you had to choose between living in two societies: One in which police are racists, or one in which teenagers are gang-raped. Believe it or not, this isn’t entirely a hypothetical question in England:

Police and social workers were last night accused of failing to investigate an Asian paedophile gang for fear of being perceived as racist, allowing them to prey on up to 50 young white girls.
The nine men from Rochdale were yesterday convicted of abusing five vulnerable teenagers after plying them with alcohol, food and small sums of money in return for sex.
However, the true number of victims, who were “passed around” by the gang, is likely to be nearer to 50, police have admitted.
Greater Manchester Police and the Crown Prosecution Service have now apologised after they failed to bring the case of the first victim — Girl A — to trial following her cry for help in August 2008. . . .
Complaints to social workers and the police were ignored because they were “petrified of being called racist”, former Labour MP for Keighley Ann Cryer said. . . .
“This is an absolute scandal. They were petrified of being called racist and so reverted to the default of political correctness,” she said.
“They had a greater fear of being perceived in that light than in dealing with the issues in front of them.”
Girl A told police that she had been raped and provided DNA evidence from her attacker, however the CPS twice decided not to prosecute him.
The 15 year-old’s abuse continued and at its height she was being driven to flats and houses to be raped by up to five men a night, four or five days a week. She was singled out because she was white, vulnerable and under-age.

It is here necessary to explain that, while Americans usually employ the term “Asian” to mean East Asian — Chinese, Korean, Japanese, etc. — in Britain the term generally denotes immigrants from Pakistan, India or the Middle East. Thus, among the “Asians” convicted in the  gang-rape case were Kabeer Hassan, Abdul Aziz, Abdul Rauf, Mohammed Sajid, Adil Khan, Abdul Qayyum, Mohammed Amin and Hamid Safi.

Blogmocracy call them “Muslim scum who gang raped a 13 year old,” a description that CAIR would likely disapprove, but the question remains: What happens when fear of being accused of “racism” prevents the police from effectively enforcing the law?

We first called attention to this problem in England with a series of posts in November 2010:

• Nov. 26, 2010: Muslim Men Led U.K. Girl-Rape Gang
• Nov. 27, 2010: Report: ‘Issues of Culture, Ethnicity and Identity’ Raised in U.K. Rape-Gang Case
• Nov. 30, 2010: Muslim Columnist: U.K. Rape Gang Case Exposes ‘Disgusting Cultural Beliefs’

Those posts concerned an entirely separate case in Derbyshire, where the accused included Abid ­Saddique, Mohammed Liaqat, Akshay Kumar, Faisal Mehmood, Mohamed Imran Rehman and Ziafat Yasin. Which is to say that we cannot dismiss these cases as isolated incidents, but must ask what underlying cultural factors are involved.

We are unlikely to get useful answers to such questions if the discussion is hemmed in by political correctness, where police and social workers — and yes, journalists — cower in fear of being accused of racism. And this leaves aside entirely the larger policy question of whether Great Britain (and other Western countries including the United States) are accepting immigrants more quickly than they can effectively assimilate them.

Two weeks ago, when two Muslim men were arrested in yet another British gang-rape case, I remarked, “You might be a right-wing extremist if . . . you think Rashid and Hussain represent an argument for stricter immigration policies.” Lots of ordinary people automatically make that mental connection, but most journalists are afraid even to take notice of this, except to abhor xenophobia, and to suggest or imply that anyone who thinks that way is in need of sensitivity training.

This is why we should be alarmed by the firing of Naomi Schaefer Riley by the Chronicle of Higher Education. This isn’t just about one writer being thrown to the wolves by a cowardly editor, because the fanaticism of the mob that got Riley canned is prevalent and unchecked in the academic world that the Chronicle represents. If no one in academia can be permitted to speak such an obvious truth — that “black studies” programs are a politicized intellectual ghetto churning out “left-wing victimization claptrap” — then, as Jefferson warned, truth is being “disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate.” And this disarmament is being led by the very elites whose institutions of higher education boast of their commitment to academic freedom.

What David Muller says about the “formulaic” demonization of designated enemies under Marxist totalitarianism is instructive for the resemblance to what we see happening in American culture today. Honest policy discussion is impossible because in recent decades the Left’s “long march through the institutions” has made political correctness (i.e., cultural Marxism) a hegemonic force within the elite precincts where such discussions normally occur.

The longer one stays within the academic millieu, the more one absorbs the politically correct weltanschauung — and nearly everyone under 50 with enough education to grasp the meaning of foreign words like millieu and weltanschauung has been so thoroughly indoctrinated with the leftist worldview that it is nearly impossible for them to think outside that particular box. Younger people, who know little or nothing about the radical takeovers of elite campuses in the 1960s — Berkeley, Columbia, Cornell, Yale, etc. — have been rigorously propagandized with the beliefs that motivated the likes of Bill Ayers, Mark Rudd and Tom Hayden.

This is why liberals nowadays so often consider their own opinions proof of superior intelligence, and assume that anyone who disagees with them is an ignorant yahoo. How many conservatives hold Ivy League Ph.D.’s in history or political science? Not many, if only because conservatives are smart enough to understand that their political beliefs make them persona non grata in elite academia, no matter how many prestigious credentials they might acquire.

“Obama disappointed in N.C. vote,” declares the Politico headline: Yes, the Columbia B.A./Harvard J.D. in the White House knows that 61 percent of North Carolina voters are a bunch of benighted reactionaries, so he is “disappointed” by their bigotry.

Of course, it’s not as if the president spent the past month campaigning in North Carolina in opposition to Amendment One, because Obama’s still hoping to get enough votes from ignorant homophobes — not just in North Carolina, but in Florida, Ohio and other “battleground” states — to win re-election in November.

Yet Obama is allowed to get away with this kind of hypocritical double-dealing for the reasons David Muller explained:

The press is part of the Party establishment, not an independent or adversarial entity. The press does not think of itself as a prisoner of the Party, resentfully forced to abandon objectivity in favor of propaganda. Rather, it sees itself as fulfilling a critically important role in supporting and expanding Party rule. Writers are not journalists in the classic Western sense, but are political activists or functionaries.

Obama and the Democrats are allowed to have it both ways: They get all the gay-rights votes by demonizing Republicans as extremist homophobic haters, yet when Democrats need to be “moderate” to win elections — to throw their own most committed constituents under the bus — the press looks the other way.

This is why Andrew Breitbart called them the Democrat-Media Complex and this is why, if you’re a liberal, you felt such a raging hatred for Breitbart: Democrat Party commissars targeted Breitbart as an enemy, and taught you to hate him. But you’d rather cling to your political self-righteousness than to wake up to the reality that your opinions are being manipulated in order to aggrandize the power of the people who manipulate you.

You’re the kind of suckers who don’t deserve an even break. The pathetic rage of Pam Spaulding should inspire only laughter in reply. There are basically three kinds of Democrats: Professional liars, amateur fools, and Future Ex-Democrats who will eventually wise up.

Having wandered rather far afield in what began as a discussion of political correctness and gang-rape, let me bring it back to where we began: Where are the feminists?

Checking Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon — nope. No concern about gang-raped schoolgirls there.

Checking Melissa McEwan at Shakesville — nope. Just scanning through, I see such deep feminist thoughts as “Mitt Romney is a dildobrain,” a lament of “rank paternalism rooted in the misogynist fallacy,” and the abhorrence of “a thin rhetorical veneer used to mask the vile bigotry of privileged a–holes.”

This kind of stuff is important to feminists, whereas British schoolgirls being gang-raped . . . eh, not so much.

It is National Offend a Feminist Week and, for the first time, we have a Catholic priest, Father John Zuhlsdorf, joining the celebration, which is kind of cool because feminists hate God and, in some cases, I suspect God hates them back. But why bring up Ashley Judd at a time like this?

Nothing is so offensive to feminists as when they are reminded that they are merely political pawns of a Democratic Party establishment that remorselessly exploits them. And really, why should Democrats feel any remorse, when feminists so cheerfuly volunteer to enable their own exploitation? Tom Barrett, the corrupt mayor of Milwaukee, just threw progressive Kathleen Falk under the Democratic Party bus in the Wisconsin primary, but you haven’t heard a peep about that from the progressive feminists blogs, have you?

Falk might as well be a 13-year-old schoolgirl raped by a Muslim, you see: Some victims are more equal than others.

UPDATE: Now a Memeorandum thread, with commentary by The Jawa Report and Jihad Watch.

 

Comments