Grooming Gangs: Americans have no leg to stand on

Rhodes Napier

The ongoing spat between Elon Musk and Keir Starmer is kind of Gotterdammerung for Brtipoppery writ large. While not exactly a Berlin Bunker moment, this does feel akin to D-Day or a Bagration. 'Not the end but the beginning of the end'. For a generational class whose entire sense of national self-worth is intimately tied to international public opinion (and deferring to it) the realisation that many people abroad view Britain as a rape ridden den friendly to foreign and domestic paedophiles alike has been psychologically traumatic. As expected, they have resorted to the usual crutches. 'Fake news, post-truth politics, the far-right', 'you're going to get someone killed' (as if leftist policy hadn't already done so an inordinate number of times) ect. These are people who exist in a state of profound and increasing state of dissonance with reality. Their world is collapsing, and as it does they are unable to accommodate the possibility that this might in some way be the product of their own hubris.

The dam was going to burst at some point, but in alignment with the Great Man Theory of history Musk's purchase of X has significantly speeded up the process. While people in online right wing circles have been somewhat aware of the phenomenon of Muslim rape gangs since it first belatedly appeared in Britain's broadsheets in 2014, very few understood the full details which are frequently buried in dense government reports and court transcripts. I'm not going to repeat what Elon has elucidated to the world here, but simply put Muslim paedophiles make Chetnik paramilitaries look like Crisis sanctuary workers. By repeating and amplifying reality, the British state has lost legitimacy both at home and abroad.

This is all to be welcomed. We very much desire not just the collapse of a regime which has facilitated near genocidal violence against the people of Britain but also that the personnel of this regime be brought to justice. I am glad these equivocal and lying figures are being hounded. They are and will increasingly fall back on the claim that they are the unfair targets of an emotionally traumatic witch hunt. They will try to humanise themselves and will doubtlessly invoke mental health. Keir Starmer already describes Jess Philips, nauseatingly pugnacious on the national stage but always deferential to her male Muslim voters, as his 'friend'. Don't be fooled by these people for one second. Even if they were not directly responsible for the original failures to prosecute rape gangs (which they are) they are still part of the institutional structure which allowed these crimes to take place. They still chose not to speak out against the crimes when they nationally revealed by highly 'reputable' newspapers over a decade ago.

But amidst this righting of wrongs, there is something overlooked and also insidious occurring. The support of Elon Musk for Britain is genuine. He an individual of immense moral clarity who hates evil and is attached to his ancestral homeland. However, the injustices which are being amplified on the world stage are also providing opportunities to those who are not sincerely outraged but who have a different axe grind. Amidst the sympathy and support from the British and broader diaspora, there are those who are using the renewed focus on the rape gangs to push an anti-British agenda, who wish to mobilise the suffering of Britain to negate our identity. The usual culprits, Cernovich (who in a tweet described Britain as a 'soulless' and 'nihilistic' place not worth saving) and Nick Salo come to mind, but they are only a manifestation of a wider problem. The central contention of many online commentators is that Britain is 'finished' and that the British are passive accomplices in their own destruction. We did not defend our women and we are uniquely passivised in contrast to Midwestern sovereign individuals or wholesome chungus remove kebab Slavs. Of course there are those foreigners who are genuinely ignorant and who also have an unduly optimistic opinion of their own domestic situation. But there are those who wish to push an active agenda of demoralisation. These are people who are primarily but not exclusively 1) American and 2) from what used to be called a ‘white ethnic’ background.

To deal with this more problematic group, it is initially worth stating that there is a randomness to the animosity which these Eastern European 'commentators' have against Britain. Their hatred goes beyond just a frustration at the current state of Britain, but an attempt to characterise the fundamental nature of the British people as morally defective. Britain is a 'cuck-island', the population of which were bred to be slaves by the Normans. There is of course a contradictory dimension to their diatribes in that these people affect to loathe Britain but at the same time claim to be motivated by a concern for the welfare of its people.

Britain does not have historical antagonism with either Poland or Croatia, and in spite of the odd Irish republican mural in the latter country there is no hatred against 'perfidious Albion’ amongst the actual denizens of these places. Indeed, neither country would exist as a state bearing non-communist entities absent the military support of the evil anglo-Atlanticist Shaytan. The reason why Cernovich et al. hate Britain is because they are products of deracinated ethnic diasporas in countries which were founded by, and whose cultural cores still derive from, Anglo-Saxon peoples. This doesn't require much explanation or analysis beyond the comment their animus is transparent. Of course the British are an immensely accomplished people. It is a hackneyed but nevertheless accurate metaphor that Cernovich (who generally derides old Europe as a 'dump') and Salo are like fish in bowls, querying what water is, when they question the cultural civilisational achievements of Britain. The descendants of Shakespeare, Rhodes and Berners-Lee don't have to address themselves to the descendants of Slavic dhimmis. They have the same psychological complexes as any immigrants who descend from historically peripheral people when confronted with the supremacy of the British and her descended countries.

The other group-people who are not unsympathetic historically to Britain but who still believe we are characterised by various self-limiting cultural pathologies-are somewhat different in their motivations. These include people like Thomas 777, and they tend to be broadly of North-West European descent. Often they believe that Americans are still gun toting individualists, and in spite of the many problems their country faces they would never allow Rotherham to happen 'over here'. These people do not hate Britain but are shocked and saddened by its seeming indifference to the attacks against it. They are motivated by a sense of American superiority (which can also be found in the first group, but in which instance it is a form of sublated ethnic resentment). They also seem entirely unaware of the actual resistance which has been and continues to be conducted on this island.

It should be noted first of all that Britain is not unique in facing the rape gang epidemic and that America is far from being immunised from these crimes. Most white countries which have experienced non-white immigration have had some type of scandal analogous to those which have occurred in Britain. Germany had its waves of migrant lead sexual assaults, Sweden had its gang rape epidemics (which many on the online right took an almost fetishistic schadenfreude in), the Netherlands its 'lover-boys' while Paris and Marseilles are notoriously unsafe place for women. Even largely ethnically homogenous Finland had its own asylum seeker grooming gang scandal in Oulu, which resulted in the suicide of an adolescent girl. Australia was attacked by predatory Arab rapists, although admittedly the perpetrators were jailed for the majority of their adult lives.

It should be noted of course that America was ground zero for Rotherham-style tactics. White Americans experienced far more ethnic violence during the 'civil rights' era than their European counterparts latterly, in which they were forced at gun point by federal troops and national guardsmen to 'integrate' with racially violent populations. In the 1970s, black men were raping more white (specifically, ‘white ethnics’ of whom Cernovich is the suburban descendent) women in Northern cities each year than the entire number of victims in Rotherham. As part of filming Taxi Driver, Scorcese and Schrader had to spend days in Times Square searching for ‘the great white pimp’; so thoroughly were white American women under the thumb of recent arrivals from the South. The result was the white exodus from urban America and the strange suburban configurations which are present throughout the United States today. Of course during this process, and up until this day, interracial sexual violence was a recurring phenomenon.

It remains to be seen what will happen to Europe but urban Catholic America is decidedly dead as a political force. Even more galling, the fightback against this process which began in the 1980s and continues with Trump has been the work of hated competitors: the bumbling, Midwest Germanic-Protestant ‘squares’, Anglo-Saxon Dixie irredentists and upwardly mobile Ashkenazim. Whereas Rotherham is, at last, being brought to light and commemorated among the people; the destruction of blue-collar Catholic America received no recognition in the culture. Nonetheless, the memory that these used to be ‘our streets’, Tony Soprano looking mournfully at his childhood home become a trap house, lingers in the background of Cernovich types. Being aware that they have been stripped of their own heritage, and feeling a vague connection to Europe left formless without access to real cultural heritage provided by Churches and ethnic fraternities, they project what is in fact an American experience of conquest onto their European homelands.

Americans also have a poor track record when it comes to tolerating elite pedophilia. American state governments in the early 20th century habitually sent ‘troubled’ young men to correctional facilities, like Father Flanagan’s ‘Boy’s Town’, in which they were frequently abused and pimped out to local elites. In 1977, the Oakland County murder case revealed a massive ring of abusers operating in Flint, Michigan, with ties to senior GM executives. The Reagan administration was a hub of elite naughtiness, with the discovery of Congressional Pages being systematically abused in 1983, and lobbyist Craig J. Spence running a male prostitution ring in the White House in 1989. When the Elm’s House scandal broke in 1980s Britain, crusading MPs like Geoffrey Dickens did, at least attempt, to bring the guilty men to justice – before mysteriously dying of a heart attack. American lawmakers and the American everyman remains more or less indifferent to these blots on national honour.

I do not deride other white ethnic groups because these groups like my own have suffered at the hands of traitors. Americans are perhaps sometimes more prone to self-delusion about the reality of their own country because they have the expanse of a continent to escape dystopian cities. This also explains why Americans, in spite many having armouries sufficient to equip militias in their garage, have not engaged in much insurrectionary political violence. America can spatially diffuse its racial and political tensions in a way which Western Europe or even Canada cannot.

On a final note, it must be emphasised that the British have not been passive in the face of the crimes committed against them. Yes, it is true many are scared and perhaps most commonly ignorant. But many others have been resisting and continue to resist. British people have been rioting from the late 1940s to the present day against immigration. Whether it be Teddy Boys, racist mods, skinheads, Mosleyites, National Frontsmen or simply ordinary working men and women, there has been active resistance. There were bits of South London where, as late as the 2000s, it was considered unwise for policemen to trespass — because they were too white. Native defiance has been the only common historically defining feature of the era of replacement migration. Whatever groups have been lobbed at us there have always been those who have said no and have been willing to put their lives at risk to defend their country. Remember that only five months ago Britain was rocked by insurrectionary riots, one of the major centres of which was Rotherham, something white Americans have never done since the 70s. Many of those arrested ranged in age from their teens to their thirties. Rather than aged recalcitrant extremists, there is a new generation willing to fight. Whenever you scoff at the supposed 'collectivism' or 'passivity' of the British people remember as you read this there are Britons currently imprisoned. We are far from finished. Indeed, the fight for the integrity of this country has only just begun.