Still, Again

One of the victims of the Rotherham grooming ring (Getty)

I imagine you remember the mess that spilled out from under the carpet in Rotheringham a while back. Hundreds of underage girls (what the media won’t tell you is, they are white working class girls, mostly) beaten, drugged, sexually abused, and such. “Grooming” they call it. Grooming for what, well I guess you can figure that one out. Very few if any people have yet to go to jail for it. Why? Because the perpetrators are, almost without exception, what the British euphemistically call, Asian. What they really are is Moslem, usually Pakistani, and their religion puts them above UK law, because of the higher law of PC. Sad, ain’t it?

There have been several cases since Rotherham spewed forth, and now there is still another, in Telford. Best I’ve read on it so far is from the Catholic Herald.

A casual attitude towards underage sex is putting children in terrible danger

What do Torbay, Liverpool, Rochdale, Thurrock, Oxfordshire, Hampshire, Bristol and Somerset have in common? All have been the subject of serious case reviews published within the past five years in connection with child sexual exploitation. That’s without mentioning Professor Alexis Jay’s independent inquiry into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham.

In all nine regions, a clear picture emerges of a culture in which underage sexual activity is viewed as relatively harmless so long as it is perceived to be consensual.

To that growing hall of shame, we must now add Telford. According to an 18-month Sunday Mirror investigation, an estimated 1,000 girls suffered sexual exploitation and abuse in the Shropshire district over a period of 40 years.

As yet, there has been no formal investigation into child sexual exploitation in Telford and no full published report, but from the limited information already available we see the reappearance of several features found in reports from other regions.

First of all, we find the same complacent attitudes towards underage sex. The Sunday Mirror reveals that “Council files show social services, teachers and mental health workers were fully aware of what was happening but did little. They also failed to tell police.”

Why? Because, like their counterparts in Rochdale, Rotherham and Bristol, education and welfare professionals in Telford assumed that the girls were making what are sometimes called “lifestyle choices”. “Instead of seeing them as exploited victims, some council staff viewed them as prostitutes,” we are told.

And so “case histories reveal many were ignored after reporting rapes to the police”. On the basis of prior assumptions that had been made about the girls, their reports were not taken seriously. The Rotherham Inquiry similarly found that “children as young as 11 were deemed to be having consensual sexual intercourse when in fact they were being raped and abused by adults”.

A second common feature is the ready and confidential provision of contraception and the morning-after pill to underage girls. One 14 year-old Telford victim said, “I must have been getting the morning-after pill from a local clinic at least twice a week but no one asked any questions.”

In spite of her frequent use of the morning-after pill, the girl fell pregnant twice and had two abortions. But presumably, still no questions were asked.

By virtue of the fact that they were seeking contraception and “sexual health services”, the girls were deemed to be making mature and responsible choices, and assumed to be freely exercising their sexual rights, even though many of them were under the age of 16 and in some cases were as young as 11.

Keep reading Norman Wells excellent article.

Whether this again involves Asians, I simply don’t know, but frankly, it matters little. That the British have become so callous towards these young girls, is the real scandal, I can imagine only a few places in America where such things could happen – on an industrial scale. A thousand girls! My God, if it were to happen most places in America – the accused would be very lucky indeed to make it to jail.

I have few answers, but I will note that this is what happens when you delegate authority that belongs to the family to an overweening welfare state. No doubt, still another chapter of this tragedy will be along shortly.

[And an update: My friends at The Conservative Woman are also writing about this, and know far more about the political situation than I do. Read the linked article, as well.]


The Late Week in Review

Well, Good Morning or Afternoon or whatever, somebody seems to have stolen an hour last night. What a joke DST has become.

Almost as big a joke as International Woman’s day, which seems to celebrate leftist, women with good jobs, and without the brains to hold them. Or something.

On March 5, 1982, Actor and singer John Belushi died from an overdose of cocaine and heroin.

On a Mission

A bit wordy, but…

Really, BBC? Even for you, that’s pretty bad.

Yesterday was Chuck Norris’ Birthday. Happy Birthday, Mr. Norris

Of course he’d approve.

As usual, most from PowerLine and Bookworm, and a couple from various posts at Ace.

Have a good week.


“Endless, Bitter Rancor Lies Ahead”

If you were to search this site for Camille Paglia, you would find eleven articles, most of them about something she has written. It is surprising how often I find myself agreeing with her, given how different in so many ways we are. Perhaps it has to do with that we actually think, and not just feel.

In any case, here is another article where I agree with much if not all. Via Joshuapundit at WatcherofWeasels.

It’s open sex war — a grisly death match that neither men nor women will win.

Ever since The New York Times opened the floodgates last October with its report about producer Harvey Weinstein’s atrocious history of sexual harassment, there has been a torrent of accusations, ranging from the trivial to the criminal, against powerful men in all walks of life.

But no profession has been more shockingly exposed and damaged than the entertainment industry, which has posed for so long as a bastion of enlightened liberalism. Despite years of pious lip service to feminism at award shows, the fabled “casting couch” of studio-era Hollywood clearly remains stubbornly in place.

The big question is whether the present wave of revelations, often consisting of unsubstantiated allegations from decades ago, will aid women’s ambitions in the long run or whether it is already creating further problems by reviving ancient stereotypes of women as hysterical, volatile and vindictive.

Complaints to the Human Resources department after the fact are no substitute for women themselves drawing the line against offensive behavior — on the spot and in the moment. Working-class women are often so dependent on their jobs that they cannot fight back, but there is no excuse for well-educated, middle-class women to elevate career advantage or fear of social embarrassment over their own dignity and self-respect as human beings. Speak up now, or shut up later! Modern democracy is predicated on principles of due process and the presumption of innocence. […]

It was overwhelmingly men who created the machines and ultra-efficient systems of the industrial revolution, which in turn emancipated women. For the first time in history, women have gained economic independence and no longer must depend on fathers or husbands for survival. But many women seem surprised and unnerved by the competitive, pitiless forces that drive the modern professions, which were shaped by entrepreneurial male bonding. It remains to be seen whether those deep patterns of mutually bruising male teamwork, which may date from the Stone Age, can be altered to accommodate female sensitivities without reducing productivity and progress.

Women’s discontent and confusion are being worsened by the postmodernist rhetoric of academe, which asserts that gender is a social construct and that biological sex differences don’t exist or don’t matter. Speaking from my lifelong transgender perspective, I find such claims absurd. That most men and women on the planet experience and process sexuality differently, in both mind and body, is blatantly obvious to any sensible person.

The modern sexual revolution began in the Jazz Age of the 1920s, when African-American dance liberated the body and when scandalous Hollywood movies glorified illicit romance. For all its idealistic good intentions, today’s #MeToo movement, with its indiscriminate catalog of victims, is taking us back to the Victorian archetypes of early silent film, where mustache-twirling villains tied damsels in distress to railroad tracks.

A Catholic backlash to Norma Shearer’s free love frolics and Mae West’s wicked double entendres finally forced strict compliance with the infamous studio production code in 1934. But ironically, those censorious rules launched Hollywood’s supreme era, when sex had to be conveyed by suggestion and innuendo, swept by thrilling surges of romantic music.

The witty, stylish, emancipated women of 1930s and ’40s movies liked and admired men and did not denigrate them. Carole Lombard, Myrna Loy, Lena Horne, Rosalind Russell and Ingrid Bergman had it all together onscreen in ways that make today’s sermonizing women stars seem taut and strident. In the 1950s and ’60s, austere European art films attained a stunning sexual sophistication via magnetic stars like Jeanne Moreau, Delphine Seyrig and Catherine Deneuve.

The movies have always shown how elemental passions boil beneath the thin veneer of civilization. By their power of intimate close-up, movies reveal the subtleties of facial expression and the ambiguities of mood and motivation that inform the alluring rituals of sexual attraction.

Read the rest here, do it now, I’ll wait for you.

There’s not a lot to add, she is simply correct, I think, and not just in the entertainment industry. The #MeToo hysteria has gone far enough that it will hurt women’s careers for years. Why exactly, would anybody with an ounce of sanity, hire somebody that experience indicates will involve your company (and likely you) in lawsuits and blatant blackmail. Just no sense in it.

The other thing she is right about is that movies, back in the day of the obscenity code, were a lot sexier, because it was something beyond lust, and if we are honest, nobody looks as good in reality as they do in our fantasies. So they broke the taboos, they made it realistic (this all goes for violence too, by the way) and they made it uninteresting, even boring. Because what we went to the movies for was a story. What we got was soft (mostly) porn.

Just the other night, I thought it might be fun to watch a movie, and I have thousands available, just as we all do online these days. I dug around here and there for about an hour and said the heck with it. The only ones that looked interesting, I’d seen many times, because they said something to me. Be nice if they’d make movies with a story again. Yes, Dunkirk was pretty good, as was Darkest Hour, but two movies out of the US/UK movie industries in a year, or is it a decade, what a waste.


Thursday Videos

Seems like I’ve been sitting on a few videos, either because they haven’t fir what I’m writing about or they’re a bit long, or both. So here are some of them.

From Laura Perrins at The Conservative Woman. Yes, it is aimed at a British audience, but it is true for us as well.

Another from Laura, and one you want to watch, Jordan Peterson and Camille Paglia

British sports, or is that sport?

Some truth, slightly NSFW, a lot of truth is these days

And more truth, the objective kind.

Are you tired of Jordan Peterson yet? Me neither, here he is with Ben Shapiro.

Have a good day.



“So, You’re Saying” v the Truth

I’d guess that like 4.1 million other people, you have seen this video.

Amazing, isn’t it. “So you’re saying” that Professor Peterson took apart this right-on luvvie newsbabe? Well, yes, yes I am.

So are other people, for instance, Dr. Jules Gorme yesterday in The Conservative Woman.

When Channel 4 invited Professor Jordan Peterson to be pulverised to a pulp by the mythical might of its star presenter Cathy Newman, it was re-enacting the battle between David and Goliath.

David and Goliath is the archetypal story of an ordinary shepherd boy destroying the ideological might and rhetorical bombast of the armour-plated establishment with a single slingshot. No wonder it has captured the imagination of millions of readers over two and a half thousand years across cultures and continents.

Prof Peterson adores archetypes. His writings and lectures and podcasts abound with references to Jungian and biblical archetypes. In the psychology of Carl Jung, an archetype is a primitive and pervasive idea, image, or symbol, inherited from our earliest ancestors, that forms part of our collective unconscious. It explains why we are drawn to certain stories more than others. My wife wrote her M Phil dissertation on the American writer William Faulkner and one of her chapters explored the Jungian archetype of the ‘Terrible Mother’.

The Newman-Peterson gladiatorial duel has been watched on YouTube around three million times and in less than a week has generated firepower in terms of mainstream media analysis, popular memes and social media exchanges, sufficient to sink a battleship. ‘It’s the most satisfying piece of poetic justice since the Comet came unstuck in that tunnel in Atlas Shrugged,’ writes James Delingpole hinting at its archetypal significance.

The victory of David over Goliath marks a pivotal victory in the unremitting wars between Israel and the Philistines – an incident in which an ordinary person confronts a giant and exposes his weakness by calling out the giant’s hyped-up muscle and might as fake and fraudulent. ‘Giants are not what we think they are. The same qualities that appear to give them strength are often the source of great weakness,’ observes Malcolm Gladwell in his book David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits and the Art of Battling Giants.

Do read it all, and look around while you are there, it’s one of the best conservative sites on the internet.

Tucker Carlson interviewed Profesor Peterson as well, it’s rather interesting

James Delingpole had some thoughts as well, linked above by Jules Gomes.

“I don’t think I have ever witnessed an interview that is more catastrophic for the interviewer,” says Douglas Murray.

He’s right.

If you loathe the cant, self-righteousness, and stupidity of the regressive left, then you’ll love this train wreck of an interview. It’s the most satisfying piece of poetic justice since the Comet came unstuck in that tunnel in Atlas Shrugged.

Newman set out to ensnare and destroy someone whose politics she found objectionable — but ended up being hoist by her own petard.

But this interview, I believe, is much more than just a conservative “lol and share” moment. I think it marks a pivotal victory in the culture wars — an incident in which the weaknesses of the regressive left have never been more cruelly or damningly exposed. So I want to examine in more detail why.

It matters not so much because of who Cathy Newman is — after all, barely anyone watches Channel 4 News — but what she represents.

Educated at one of Britain’s leading private schools, with a first class degree in English from Oxford University, Newman is the embodiment of the woke millennial generation: white children of privilege on a mission to remake the world anew according to the principles of the thing they call “Social Justice.”

Newman was unlucky. Had she been born a generation early, she might well have gone on to do something useful with that fine mind, Oxbridge education, and undoubted tenacity. Perhaps, as she’d originally planned, she might have become a professional musician or a lawyer. Perhaps, she would have become a fearless and compelling foreign correspondent, in the manner of her role model, the BBC’s Kate Adie.

Instead, like so many of the university-educated elite of her generation, she embraced the fashionable politically correct, post-modernist view of the world. This view would have us believe that there is no such thing as objective truth — only a succession of competing “narratives,” some more “privileged” than others.


[…] Peterson replies: “Not necessarily.”

And he’s not being evasive or devious, merely behaving as a grown-up professor at a grown-up university should: looking at the facts; exploring an issue from all angles; drawing intelligent conclusions.

Perhaps the most damning of all the many damning things that can be said about Cathy Newman’s performance in this car crash interview is this: it’s not intelligent.

No, worse than that: it’s anti-intelligent.

And this isn’t an accident. Newman’s anti-intelligence is not a bug but a feature of the way post-modernists think. Their ideology is an explicit rejection of the entire pre-20th century canon of Western thinking — a rejection, indeed, of Western Civilization itself. Never mind the wisdom of the ancients, the moral precepts of Christianity, the skepticism and scientific inquiry of the Enlightenment: all this outmoded thinking, mostly emanating from Dead White Males, must be replaced by a new order based not on first principles, or established tradition, or logic but on “Social Justice.”

This is what was truly so important about this interview. It exposed, more clearly I think than in any adversarial TV encounter I have ever seen,  the intellectual emptiness at the heart of the SJWs’ thinking.

Enough said.

The First Duty of the Strong

Today is The March for Life in Washington, when our friends and neighbors will gather in their hundreds of thousands, for the 45th time, to remember the millions of babies legally murdered in the United States since 1973. The President, Donald Trump will address the march via video link from the Rose Garden. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan will address the crowd in person. This is a moral fight in which the United States leads the world. One of the reasons our faith grew, in the beginning, was the fact that we did not leave our children to die of exposure.

Our country was founded on the principle that every person has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But in truth, without life the others are meaningless.

The article below highlights two stories, one by my dearest friend Jessica which is about the damage caused by abortion to the mother. The other is by another friend, Caroline Farrow, about the damage caused to the father, and the relationship itself. They are harrowing reading, a real-life horror story. This is what abortion does, beyond the infanticide. It harms everybody connected with it.

There are also many local events taking place this weekend, you can find out about them here.

I know, it’s Saturday, and usually we try to keep it a little lighter on Saturday. But I read this yesterday, and it haunted me last night. Not least because it reminded me of a similar story that Jess told us, here and here. In that story as well, the baby was killed, and the structure of the mother’s life was seriously disrupted, including her relationship with the father. Not least because of finding Jesus through Jess and the Vicar, the mother survived, although I have no idea about the father.

But it’s another case where the easy availability of abortion hurt many beyond the baby, and another where her decision had the potential to destroy the mother as well. This is the wider evil of abortion. It has effects, nearly all of them bad, on everybody concerned.

We kind of forget this, as we think about the horrors of the Planned Parenthood marketing plan, but it too is real. Maybe there are men and women so callous that they can walk away unscarred by killing their baby, if so, I have never met them. It doesn’t always disable people, but I think it always leaves a scar on them as well, and that is what the literature tells us, as well.

Here’s a bit of Caroline’s story

A few weeks ago my friend posted a status update on Facebook highlighting a plea for help from a forum mainly populated by men. A poster’s girlfriend had found herself unexpectedly pregnant and the young man simply didn’t know what to do.

Without going too much into the specifics of the situation, he was a mature student, his girlfriend was slightly older than him, had a well-paid secure job and a child from a previous marriage. On discovering she was pregnant, her initial reaction was one of delight she assumed that they would be having the baby and set about telling all her friends and family.

Though the young man shared some of his girlfriend’s excitment, he was at the same time, daunted and understandably so. Although he loved his girlfriend, he took the responsibilities of fatherhood seriously and wasn’t sure whether or not now was the right time to take their relationship to the next level. The news that she was expecting sent the woman into what seems to be a frenzy of nesting. Immediately she made a series of demands upon him which involved him making a series of unnecessary and excessive sacrifices. He would need to abandon his plans for a PhD in a specialist scientific discipline, take up extra shifts on his minimum wage job and move in with her. He’d also not be allowed to take any of his pets into her home and neither would he be allowed any space of his own to study. He’d have to make do with the family’s kitchen table. Furthermore the baby’s arrival date was causing him some concern, it was due to coincide with his finals. He’d therefore had a major panic, feeling trapped, that she was bouncing him into a baby that he wasn’t ready for and while he wasn’t averse to the idea of a baby, he just couldn’t see how things were going to work out.

Source: Just another member of the patriarchy | The Catechesis of Caroline

It also makes me wonder, would have they have had all this trouble, in either of the cases here, if they had been in a serious marriage, not the shallow ones, or none (as in these cases) so many of our compatriots have, but the kind of marriage, with God, that most of us remember from our parent’s time, what Rome calls Sacramental Marriage, although there is nothing particularly Catholic about it, although it is a Christian construct. It has to do with meaning the marriage vows, and the commitment they identify. What good is a relationship in which we run away from each other in a time of trouble, that’s when we need each other the most.

A few things for us all to think about this weekend.

%d bloggers like this: