September 4, 2014

The rapes in Rotherham were possible because of The Left [Darleen Click]

When “good” and “evil” become moot, and everything is viewed through the lens of Race, Gender, Class, the question is not “How did this ever happen in a Western City?” but “How many more Rotherhams are waiting to be uncovered?”

The enemy is us.

Who could read about 15 years of rape and abuse, happening while authorities feared breaking the rules of political correctness by questioning cultural practices?

Download the report and read it. Note that over 100 babies have been born of all this. Note also how, again and again, the official response to this behavior seemed to be a puzzled shrug.

What Rotherham puts me in mind of is the behavior of the conqueror. One of the terrible after-effects of invasion and war has been the subjugation of the women, the rape of wives and daughters, the seed of the conqueror, inserted into a culture and a society — yet another tactic meant to subdue and eradicate.

And yet, there has been no old-fashioned “invasion” and no “war” in the southern part of Yorkshire. This conquering was invited, and it was invited throughout Europe, where Rotherham will be discovered to have been replicated. Why wouldn’t it be? Who in Europe would dare to prosecute?

Rotherham will not be the last “conquest”. There are radical Islamists — not “observant” mind you, just radical — living in the West and determinedly unassimilated to it, on every continent.

Obama and ilk cannot let the word “Islam” pass their lips while making noises about “managing the problem” of ISIS. The next step can be found in a startling and bizarre column from the National Post in which the author seriously offers that way to “save your life” is to know how to recite the shahadah.

Sure, and we can wear burqas, close churches and temples and pay jizyah.

Why not just submit and be done with it?

In the struggle between the West and barbarism, the Left chooses barbarism. For them, The Other is only reactive to the evil of Western Civilization’s imperialism, colonialism, sexism and heteronormitivity. The Other is the perpetual victim and we are the perpetual oppressors.

We cannot and should not fight only against the barbarism of Islamism, but also the anti-Western dogma of the Left that enables it.

Posted by Darleen @ 1:33pm

Tags: , , ,

Comments (118)

  1. Islam was put on this earth to Darwin critical thought and plain manly courage out of the human race. It is not a thing of God.

  2. at least all these children have national health care.

  3. Why not just submit and be done with it?

    In point of fact Darleen, by reciting the shahadah, you are in fact submitting.

  4. To recite the shahadah when you’re accosted on the streets is to accept the basic premise of your attackers – that Islam now has universal jurisdiction. There’s way too much of that already. In essence, the entire establishment of a South Yorkshire town accepted that the cultural mores of Islam superseded whatever squeamishness they might otherwise have about child rape.

    Because in the new scheme of things, your racism is worse than their rape –which is a cultural thing that you don’t have the right to judge.

    Makes you wonder what the victims understand that we don’t, doesn’t it?

  5. I suppose we could try looking on the bright side. After all, Sherriff Joe’s on the case. We’re going to follow ISIS to the Gates of Hell!

  6. – The Left will play this game right up until they can no longer pretend they’re immune to the consequences because of shut up.

    – When that happens we can all point and laugh long and hard, and then forget them for another 50 years.

  7. Islam was put on this earth to Darwin critical thought and plain manly courage out of the human race.

    That’s what I find a bit surprising. How many victims are we talking about here? And out of that number not a single father or brother decided to take action after the authorities wouldn’t?

    It’s hard to account for.

  8. That’s what I find a bit surprising. How many victims are we talking about here? And out of that number not a single father or brother decided to take action after the authorities wouldn’t?

    My understanding is that at least a couple of father’s were arrested by the authorities for attempting to do just that.

    Also, it’s hard to take action when you’ve either been acculturated to innaction for multiple generations (i.e “the dole”) or you’ve been ennervated by the force of law (e.g. gun control).
    It’s that whole “leave it the authorities, they’re the professionals” mentality the Managerial State has been inculcating since the early twentieth century.

  9. – The Left will play this game right up until they can no longer pretend they’re immune to the consequences because of shut up.
    – When that happens we can all point and laugh long and hard, and then forget them for another 50 years.

    When the Left reaches that point, they’ll stop sympathizing and start assimilating.

    Because if there’s anything the Left knows how to do, it’s stay in power.

  10. It’s just occurred to me that The Powers That Be in Rotherham may have justified their own inaction to themselves on the grounds that if we don’t hush this up/keep angry male relations from taking justice into their own hands, we’re going to have a race war on our hands. And we don’t want that!.

    Which, ironically enough, is exactly what they deserve to get, because the State just proved that it’s not as reliable as kith and kin.

    Paul Rahe wrote an article about that very thing, you know.

    (And I know you do).

  11. My understanding is that at least a couple of father’s were arrested by the authorities for attempting to do just that.

    Cheers to them, at least. Interesting to see what warrants an arrest: evil or justice.

    “Enervate” is an excellent choice of words, btw.

  12. When I first saw Darleen’s headline my mind jumped toward the pending pledges of the “international community” to give aid in monies to Hamas in Gaza for “rebuilding” the destroyed housing and other buildings and infrastructure there — estimated by an Arab economic entity to be in the range of $7 Billion, high by likely a factor of two I’d guess. Still, the destruction is surely significant and will be costly to replace.

    So when the day comes that the money starts to flow and I refer to the Rotherhamization of Gaza, y’all will know exactly what I’m on about: the “international” left subsidizing crime, murder, outrage, Jew-hate and such. It’s just as plain as day, and profitable to all manner of non-Government Organizations.

  13. Why, if Gazaans felt pain — felt it without remorse or mercy — Gazaans might learn.

    And that’s just out of the question.

  14. But, shit, what do we know about such things? We only turned the death-cult Japanese into panty-sniffers aging into nothing and the oven-filling Huns into the sort of hippies who ask for your signature outside of Whole Foods while the rest of the continent steals their savings.

    There’s certainly no lesson to be learned… ever.

  15. The only “virtue” left is that poorly educated people with supposed liberal arts degrees don’t have to face their cognitive dissonance on a day-to-day basis.

  16. ‘Liberal’, through its subsumption by the political left has been morphed into ‘be as killy as ye like’ and someones else will pick up the tab — though the someones else, illiberals themselves of course — can only be slaves to the killy. Seems ever to be a two-fold world: they monads and they dyads.

  17. I guess that explains why they’re investigating the department instead of the officer now.

  18. nr’s latest link is well worth a visit

  19. funny how there is a ” Common Purpose” program in the uk and a “common core education” thing in the usa?

  20. “Common” does stand out to me.

    What might confuse me, intentionally on their part, is the “core” idea.

    We had that at the U of C and it was understood to mean very much the opposite. The “Great Books” idea, this is what it was, and what it was was the Western cannon of civilization.

    Perhaps they’re like the diseased flies who mimic the dangerous wasps.

  21. Common sense died and common nonsense was born.

  22. What’s the opposite of “huzzah”?

  23. Why not just submit?
    I think David and Paul had something to say to that.
    But they were Jews , and likely not spoken of much in the Church of St Jerimiah Wrong

  24. “common” = disguised “collectivist”?

  25. My best guess is that you’re right with that, nr.

  26. “Government is just another word for those things we do together.”

    — some sophistic asshole or another

  27. Today is the first day of the rest of your life.
    They paved paradise and put up a parking lot.
    Hope and change.
    Four dead in Ohio.
    That is all.
    Sleep secure, comrade citizen.

  28. i think the the only way to shut
    “them” down is a massive down sizing of
    the fed gov’t. the “orangeman” has that
    on his agenda next year i’m sure;)

  29. I wouldn’t mind redirecting the discussion towards the passions of men though if you guys don’t mind.

    It is passing strange how there weren’t more unsolved poisoning and hit and run accidents in that area. Why didn’t men kill other men over these grave offenses. I don’t understand it.

    Was it that the victims were never really in touch with their families? Were they runaways and drugged out or something?

    A thing I remember in my life that started forming my personality was in two parts. Part 1: I became far larger than my mom’s drunk boyfriends. Part 2: I have sisters.

    Part 3: I have a sealed teenage history. I became a giant. I could throw these guys out on the street. I could menace them. I could injure them.

    I have little doubt that if I hadn’t been willing to be a violent asshole at that age my sisters would have suffered. So, I did so. I caused a bit of strain between my mother and myself. It also gave me a fairly extensive juvie record.

    But, that wasn’t really by choice. It was by emotion.

    How are all of these other folks making rational choices like this? I don’t understand it.

  30. Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.
    Wouldn’t that be nice?

  31. nothing to do with “thug” culture news

    Why Do They Join the Jihad?

  32. What I mean to say by all of that is that you injure or kill those who want to harm your women or children.

    That’s what you do.

    I don’t get people who don’t get that.

  33. in some ways, the “rap/hip hop/low class black culture” is a starting point. true islam, (read jihad watch/gates of vienna since 2005) takes that to its conclusion: bitches/hoes need to submit; police need to die, our way(sharia) or the highway mentality?

  34. But bh, that would be uncivilized! Everyone knows that if you fight back you’re no better than your attacker!


    Livestock. They’re farther along in England than we are here, but we’re following a well-worn path.

  35. That probably is the starting point for many around 1990 to 2010.

    What’s the issue is having your ma and sisters being those bitches/hoes. You don’t control yourself when this happens. Well, I didn’t.

    That always made me extremely violent. I know what a county jail sandwich tastes like. Bologna and american cheese. Every day of the week.

  36. Yeah, I reckon.
    So back to the question of submit/don’t submit . Vis a vis Barack /liberation theology vs David vs Goliath or New Testament Paul.
    America stands down.?

  37. And, yeah, you shit in front of other guys. It’s kinda weird.

  38. bh

    Mark Steyn

    That’s not a small concession. As recently as the 18th century, 25 per cent of all unmarried females in Britain’s capital city were whores; the average age of a prostitute was 16; and many brothels prided themselves on offering only girls under the age of 14. In the 1790s, a “good man” could stroll past an 11-year-old prostitute on a London street without feeling a twinge of disgust or outrage; he accepted her as merely a feature of the landscape, like an ugly hill – as the burghers of Rotherham appear to have accepted it. A century later, there were still child prostitutes, but there were also charities and improvement societies and orphanages – and the Victorian innovation of a “social conscience”.

    The morality of the Victorian era was hard-won. Today happens to be the 255th birthday of William Wilberforce, the backbench Member of Parliament, about whom I have a word to say in my forthcoming book. As he wrote in 1787, “God Almighty has set before me two great objects: the suppression of the slave trade and the reformation of manners.”

    We know about the first of those great objects: Wilberforce did more than any other single human being to help eradicate slavery from most of the world. The latter goal, which we’d now call “changing the culture”, was perhaps even tougher. Then as now, the Church of England was feeble and fainthearted and, for the most part, no more use than those Aussie Anglicans who’ve publicly pledged this week, in the usual one-way multifaith mush, to “love Muslims”. Yet Wilberforce pulled off his “reformation of manners” – to the point where we, children of the 20th century, now mock our 19th-century forebears as uptight prudes, moralists and do-gooders. In fact, 19th-century Britons were for the most part no better or worse than their great-grandparents. As I suggested to Michael Graham on the radio, most people don’t think in terms of “good” or “evil”, they go along with whatever the prevailing mores are.

    So now, in the new multiculti Britain, the child sex trade is back, as part of the rich, vibrant tapestry of diversity – along with Jew-hate, and honor killings, and decapitation porn. The solutions to the internal contradictions of multiculturalism are (a) David Cameron’s expanded security state; (b) Afsun Qureshi’s universal prostration before Islam; or (c) an end to mass Muslim immigration. The last is too obvious for any viable western politician ever to propose it.

  39. Livestock. They’re farther along in England than we are here, but we’re following a well-worn path.

    I just don’t think you’re wrong here. You’re right as best as I can tell.

  40. All y’all get it.


  41. I’ve read enough of the awakening and the subsequent hand-wringing. What I want to know now is when will the men of Rotherham return from their cargo-cult-like funk and, singularly or collectively, strike back at the subhuman animals who terrorized their children? Surely this is just the beginning of the rest of the story? And for many of the perpetrators’ health, an unexpected turn for worse is just days away?

  42. I think it’s a good sign that we’re viewing that Steyn column as a common point of reference.

  43. Myself, I think Serr8d says it true.

    Action is required. To do otherwise is to contribute to further rape and disease.

    Action is required here. It is.

  44. Oh. Per Steyn, the culture of Rotherham accepts as normal the maltreatment of children, as did their great-greats. Nothing’s changed except that the perps talk just a bit odd.

    Nothing to see here; move along now, we’re a quiet little town not needing outsiders poking about and stirring up ire. That’s for the ilk in Bree, common sorts who rather enjoy being startled.

  45. That’s not Steyn’s thrust, serr8d. Not at all.

  46. Not his thrust, his description. His thrust, I imagine, would be like mine, were this to happen to ones we hold dear.

  47. What Steyn is emphasizing is the hardship involved in the “reformation of manners”.

    What he’s saying is that we should not be importing such problems after we’ve spent such effort on conquered them the first time.

  48. Okay, I’ve misunderstood, serr8d. Sorry.

  49. The solutions to the internal contradictions of multiculturalism are (a) David Cameron’s expanded security state; (b) Afsun Qureshi’s universal prostration before Islam; or (c) an end to mass Muslim immigration.

    What’s called for is (d) The Cleansing of the Shire. Preferably as a massive public outcry followed by grim police manhunt and pursuit of the rapists; their capture, lockup, trials, convictions and punishments made as loud and as common as Adhan, five times daily. Draw a line and dare it crossed.

  50. Context. This is the UK where even knives are banned and defending yourself or others from an attack is often a more serious offense that the attack itself.

    Ending the girls’ ordeal should have been a relatively simple and risk-free matter. But not only did the authorities fail to stop the abuse and prosecute the offenders, they didn’t even try. They ignored pleas for help from the young victims and their families, and covered up their failure to act; and for good measure they arrested some of the victims and their families when they sought help.


    It’s almost too appalling a notion to process: while girls were being physically abused under their noses, child protection officials were busy removing children from decent and loving foster parents because they viewed being brought up by conservatives as a form of psychological abuse.

    The Rotherham victims were also failed by many of the police officers for whom Shaun Wright is now responsible. Officers didn’t take child sex exploitation seriously, and regarded child victims with as much contempt as their abusers did. In some of the few cases in which police did become involved, victims or their parents were arrested, rather than the offenders.

    As in the U.S., Britain’s police are increasingly being transformed from protectors of the public to the enforcement division of the state (albeit without the military hardware), and in recent years UK police forces have been more preoccupied with prosecuting the vaguest suggestion of racism or homophobia on the part of white men than with tackling far worse crimes within sections of the Muslim community.

    The scandals can also be blamed in part on the modern left’s contempt for the white working classes.

    By the time child B was identified as being at risk in 2001, she was 15 years old and was already being raped and trafficked by a much older man. He told her, along with the other children he had groomed, that he loved her. She was convinced that she loved him.

    Her school got in touch with Risky Business, a youth service set up to support young girls at risk of sexual exploitation, because they feared she had been groomed but her files show that even though a child protection referral was made for her, there is no evidence that any action was taken to help. Her abuser trafficked the girl to Leeds, Bradford and Sheffield – putting her up in a flat and organising for other men to come and have sex with her.

    Child B’s situation deteriorated rapidly – within a few months she and her family were living in fear of their lives. They were bombarded with threats, the windows of their house were put in.

    At the command of the groomer, child B was beaten up by other victims he had groomed. She was stalked, had petrol poured over her and was threatened with being set alight.

    Her family was also targeted – an older sibling was hospitalised in a serious attack, while a younger sibling had to go into hiding to escape the abuser’s reach. They refused to have anything to do with the police, believing they could do nothing to protect them.

    Girl B was left completely alone. She tried to end her life on several occasions. She lived in abject fear. By the time she was 18 her relationship with her family had broken down and she was left homeless.

    [A] shared assumption beneath the police inaction and the council workers’ negligence: all of them deemed the girls worthless. The police described them as “undesirables” while knowing they were indeed “desired” by both Pakistani and white men for sex. They were never seen as children at all, but as somehow unrapeable, capable of consensual sex with five men at the age of 11.

  51. Oh, pathetic England. First you made livestock of your people. Then you welcomed in the wolves. Now you gaze in bovine wonder at the carnage.

    Any free man could have told you this would happen, at any point on your journey. In fact, we did. And we insist on telling our own people and so-called leaders, even pointing at your example as proof.

    But once made docile, no creature is easily restored to the wild. Jack London to the contrary notwithstanding.

  52. In the real world, Buck would have been torn to shreds by the wolf pack.

  53. Geoffb, it seems that England has come undone.

    Churchill‘s rolling, you think?

    “How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.”

  54. Man, it’s just really hard to read Geoff’s comment and then think about it.

  55. It’s just brutal.

  56. If you want to understand the lack of reaction in Rotherham, I think you need to work you’re way through Anthony Daniels/Theodore Dalrymple’s oeuvre —Our Culture, What’s Left of It, Not With a Bang, But a Whimper and most especially, The New Vichy Syndrome, reading them in the light of C.S. Lewis’s Abolition of Man, and also Tocqueville.

    Men without chests aren’t born whelped, they’re made.

  57. I’m going to go and try to dig up that Tocqueville quote I have in mind. The hard way.

    If one of you google-fu wizards of the weirding way know the one I have in mind, you can beat me to it with a link.

    I’m looking in your general direction GeoffB.

  58. Found it on the third try. As it turns out, I wasn’t remembering a specific quote, but a summary of Tocqueville’s argument by (whom else?) Theodore Dalrymple:

    Where Custine had studied the effect of despotism upon the human psyche and character, Tocqueville studied the effect of political liberty and legal equality upon them. Liberty had certain disadvantages, he thought, but the price was worth paying (the mirror image of Custine’s conclusion that any good that the czarist regime did was bought at far too high a cost). In many respects, freedom’s consequences were the opposite of despotism’s. Men became honest when they had to deal with one another on the basis of legal equality, rather than sly, underhanded, and dissimulating, as they were under despotism. When a man’s reputation depended more upon his activity than upon his position in a social hierarchy, conferred at birth, as in Russia, he was inclined to virtue without any obvious external compulsion. In addition, the comparative absence of governmental interference in his life rendered him energetic, enterprising, and thoughtful in pursuit of his own economic interests.

    For that reason, a society of free men could organize itself to produce impressive public works without the coercion applied by Peter the Great and his successors—provided only that the public works were of genuine public utility and not merely the whim of one man. The interests of the individual and those of the political power—which is to say, the chosen representatives of the community at large—were united by a thousand small bonds.

    But it was from this initial identity of interest that a potential danger arose. By small degrees—though this was only a possibility, not an inevitability—men might cede their independence to a government that represented them, that was believed to have their interests at heart, and that was (after all) composed of men very like themselves. In a passage that united prophetic with psychological insight, Tocqueville (who rightly foresaw that democratic government was destined to spread widely, if not throughout the entire world) described the future soul of man under a seemingly benevolent and democratic government that willingly labored for the happiness of the people “but chose to be the sole agent and only arbiter of that happiness.” Such a government would “supply [the people] with their necessities, facilitate their pleasures, manage their principal concerns.” What would remain, but to “spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living”? When this came to pass, “the will of man will not be shattered, but softened, bent and guided.” Men will not be forced to act, but prevented from acting; the government will not destroy, but prevent a full human existence. It will not tyrannize, but “enervate, extinguish and stupefy a people.”

    And this is exactly the condition to which a part of the population had been reduced under irreproachably democratic governments. Living in subsidized housing, its children educated free of charge and its medical bills paid (all for its own good, of course), with an income sufficient to guarantee both enough food and perpetual entertainment in the form of television, all its “principal concerns” are “managed,” just as Tocqueville said they would be, and it is thus spared “the care of thinking and all the trouble of living.” This is the welfare-dependent population among which I work: so enervated and stupefied that it cannot cook for itself even when it has nothing else to do but eats only pre-cooked food, and so enervated and stupefied that when trash appears in its own front yard, it cannot summon the initiative to clear it away by itself but—if it notices the mess at all—summons officialdom to do so on its behalf.

    In just this way, does the sexual exploitation* of children become a problem to be managed instead of either a crime to be punished, or, more primitively perhaps, an injury to be revenged.

    *i.e. real sex trafficking, not the current term d’art for prostitution. But that’s neither here nor there; and don’t misinterpret my interest in precise language here for a Reason-esque support for legal prostitution.

  59. “Men will not be forced to act, but prevented from acting[.]” That’s what bh is struggling to understand here.

  60. All right thinking people would agree that these sorts need to be put down like dogs.

    That’s what needs to be done. Rape children and threaten immolation and you get put down.

    A good friend of pw recently mentioned a notable pacifier of India and now I’ve forgotten the name.

  61. That’s what bh is struggling to understand.

    I do struggle to understand this. You’re not wrong.

    (Yes, I understand that you understand my lack of understanding and that we’re on the same page even though I create this sort of protest in remembrance for the carefree, consequence-less violences of my youth.)

  62. A pdf file that documents that the problem in the UK is more extensive than just this one town or area even. In the introduction there is a call for their report to have the authorities deal with the problem as they see it saying…

    Vigilante violence disables its own society, and is one of the short-cuts from Queen’s peace to all-against-all. The self-appointed doer of justice tears a hole in the entire fabric of the law.

    My view is that “vigilante violence” only happens when the “Queen’s peace” has already been breached and lies in tatters. Once the right of self defense has been thrown out and all must await the “Queen’s” enforcers to mop up things after unrightable harm has been done then the only things left are complete submission to whoever is the strongest and most assertive of their power or the dread “Vigilante violence.”

  63. Sir Charles Napier:

    “You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”

    As popularized by Mark Steyn

  64. And you’re quite right in my estimation, Goeff.

    The Law only has agreed upon right by its judicial use. Fuck with that and everything is open once more.

    That’s what these people are playing with. That’s what these people have thrown away.

  65. Thanks, Ernst.

    Yes, Napier it is.

  66. The keepers of the Queen’s peace were so preoccupied with keeping self-appointed justice doers from tearing holes in the fabric of the law that they let the violators of the Queen’s peace tear that fabric to shreds.

    I guess the Queen has the same tailors as the Emperor who appears naked to all the rubes too benighted to see what a real amazing technicolor dreamcoat looks like.

  67. The Law only has agreed upon right by its judicial use. Fuck with that and everything is open once more.
    That’s what these people are playing with. That’s what these people have thrown away.

    Don’t think for a second that those people don’t know that. The reason they’re coming down harder on the relatives of the victims is in part because they expect it will be easier to keep the natives in line than it will be to bring the foreigners into line. The soft bigotry of low expectations meets the bureaucratic path of least resistance.

    It’s the same song and dance we see in Gaza. Or when the SCOAMFOTUS takes about degrading and destroying ISIS out of one side of his mouth, and about managing the problem of ISIS out of the other.

    Managing ISIS is like managing cancer. You can only manage it until it kills you.

  68. takes, talks, same diff

  69. This might be their very aim but is it written that this will turn out well for them?

    Lots and lots of those sort get hung from the neck. It’s a bit of a pattern really. Only polite civilization protects them from such outcomes. I mean, really, that’s how it so often works. They have a good run for a few years and then they’re twisting in the wind. Slowly twisting, their bowels emptied on the street.

    Unloved. Scorned. Little kids throwing rocks at their dumb ass corpses for joke.

  70. “That pedo?”

    “Yeah, that one!”

    “I can too hit him with a rock from here! I’ll shows ya.”

  71. I have a buddy in Canada who is all about the various ‘-ism’s of the left and I regular burn through his arguments.

    Since he is a “feminist” and all about denouncing the “rape culture” I asked him about Rotherham and if he was outraged. Shock of shocks he never heard of it. He is more worried about this stupid “gamergate” BS going on Twitter about to hear about something that actually constitutes an actual rape or feminist crisis.

    I wish I was surprised, if it wasn’t for me he probably would never hear a dissenting voice in his personal bubble.

  72. This might be their very aim but is it written that this will turn out well for them?

    Richard Fernandez had a column along those very lines. Something Either GeoffB or sdferr linked. Unless it was serr8d.

    His rhetorical question was along the lines of “what happens when our side (e.g. Israel) stops playing by our rules, and starts playing the game by their rules (e.g. Israelis kidnap and murder a palestinian in retaliation for the kidnap and murder of a Jew)?”

    When, in the post-post modern world where Western notions of copyright no longer apply –because there’s neither Western law nor a West to enforce it– I finally get to publish my highly anticipated Everything I Really Needed to Know in Life I Learned From Watching Westerns, I intend to include the exchange from Kevin Costner’s Wyatt Earp where Clum says to Wyatt: The law’s the same for them as it is for us.” To which Wyatt replies, “Then the Law don’t work so good John.”

  73. And that’s the thing really, ain’t it? The Law needs to work. If it doesn’t then it’s not something that people will keep paying any attention to after the habit wears off.

  74. Speaking of which, Bastiat’s The Law is always a good read to get a feel for the basic requirements for such group agreements with public conduct and coercion.

    (PSA over. It’s always worth a plug though.)

  75. This should probably be parenthetical if not outright bracketed but this is always something I’ve quite appreciated with Glenn Reynolds. The man understands the foundation of the law well enough that he often warns when the general public should no longer pretend to be a party to such a raw deal.

  76. On a related note, Glenn Reynold’s links to Paul Mirrengroff’s summary of Michael Ledeen’s reflection on Why Jihad?

    Ledeens notes “The main problem with democratic capitalism is that it’s so successful, and therefore very boring.” Jihad “gives meaning to life” for the bored.

    This may be quibbling on my part, but it seems to me that a more complete assessment of the problem would note that democratic capitalism is successful at supplying the material needs of life, and less successful at providing for man’s other needs.

    I guess if I have a point it’s this, Locke’s (or is it Hobbes’s) “low but secure” foundations aren’t really all that secure after all.

  77. Perhaps it should be doubly bracketed to appreciate Jeff’s Outlaw in this same fashion but I reckon that’s been long understood in these parts.

  78. dammit –forget the links–again.

    Reynolds links Mirengoff links Ledeen

  79. Another piece in which is a case I’d not heard of. A 17 year old girl was stabbed to death and thrown in a canal by two men because she told their families about their rape of her thus bringing “shame” on the families. A non-familial “honor-killing.”

  80. You’ve posed such a fantastic question, Ernst.

  81. For the point of the discussion we could probably take Hobbes by way of Leviathan and Locke’s Second Treatise as roughly analogous even though there would be room to quibble.

  82. The law always works. That was my point about civilized law giving away to something more, shall we say –visceral. Those old codes of blood vengeance are the subfoundations that keep the whole edifice aloft.

    And should the structure crumble, what get’s exposed. Why, the subfoundation of course!

  83. I pose many fantastic questions bh

    said the whiskey Ernst is sippin”

  84. Should we bring Tomas of Aquino in for fun then? Oh, it does tempt the nerd in me. Yes, it does.

    What I would start as an initial offering is a further question of whether we might not bring our friend A. Smith into the discussion under some greater umbrella of political economy.

    ‘Cause I think he’s up for the question posed better than these other fellows who are rather more narrow in their focus.

  85. For myself I think I would not put Hobbes or Locke up for questions such as “Life? What’s best in it?”

    They’re not there.

    Smith, maybe. Some early Christian thinkers, definitely. The Greek folk for sure.

  86. As a late-antique/early medieval historian by training and disposition, I’m more comfortable with Augustinian neo-Platonism than with Thomistic neo-Aristotlianism myself.

    I guess that’s why I love David P. “Spengler” Goldman:

    Nations fail, Augustine argued, because peoples fail, and peoples fail because they love the wrong things. A people defines itself by what it loves, and false love produces a frail and fragile nation. America’s exceptional history as the only nation in the world with two centuries of political continuity stems from its people’s love for individual rights, which they hold to be inalienable because they are granted by a power that no human agency dare oppose.
    What we might call “Augustinian realism” is this premise, borne out in the world around us. To the extent that other nations share the American love for the sanctity of the individual, they are likely to succeed. To the extent they reject it, they are likely to fail. Our actions in the world can proceed from American interest”precisely because American interest consists of allying with success and containing failure.

    Augustinian realism begins with the observation that civil society precedes the character of a nation. The American state can ally with, cajole, or even crush other states, but it cannot change the character of their civil society, except in a very slow, gradual, and indirect fashion”for example, through the more than 100,000 American Christian missionaries now working overseas. This realism insists that the state should not try to do what it cannot do.

    It is not necessary to hold Augustine’s evangelical purpose to grasp the instrumental value of his observation. To take America as the measure of an Augustinian state, moreover, does not necessitate triumphalism, for America cannot take for granted that it will remain the only, or even the most important, instantiation of its own founding idea. Realism, though, requires a gauge by which to separate prospective success from incipient failure.

    This is the instrumental dimension of Augustinian realism. It has a moral dimension as well. America has a moral obligation toward citizens of other nations who share our civic love, for the same political friendship that binds together our civil society must include prospective friends in other countries. America has a moral obligation to allies and a moral interest in the welfare of people who are linked to our civil society”Christians in the global South, for example. But we have no obligation toward states and peoples who have no part in our civic love. We wish everyone well and prefer that all succeed and none fail, but realism demands that we ration our attention.

  87. I’d agree that the law does always work, if at times only like an algorithm only partially remembered from some dead Babylonian (damn it, I’m stupid, Assyrian?) or another at least.

    It works like the qwerty keyboard works. For long stretches of time when we all agree upon it then it works well enough.

    “We’re civilized men,” whispers the law without real passion. “Put down your sharpened sticks and put your grain into these shared repositories.”

  88. They’re not there.

    Deliberately so. Which is the Great Division between the ancients and the moderns.

    Unless Wiker is right about us all being Epicureans now –in which case what’s best in life is in fact to have those baser needs met –regularly and often.

    To which Stacy McCain would no doubt add: and by somebody who knows how.

  89. The idea I was trying to get at is the only reason your people and my people can live together in relative peace is because we’ve both agreed to abjure our right to vengeance in exchange for the protection of the state (or the king –same principle in pre-modern Europe). Because if we’re not part of a larger community-cooperative-fictive kinship structure, why shouldn’t I try to rape your sisters if I can, and you rape my daughters if you can?

    Blood vengeance is why.

    At one time, to be outside the law, an outlaw, meant that you had no expectation of protection –nobody was obliged to revenge any harm done to you.

    Makes you appreciate the Big Brass Ones those Irish and Anglo-Saxon missionaries working on the continent had.

    If you know anything about that sort of thing.

  90. This is a bit afield but I do wonder based on your usage, Ernst, you occasionally use Epicurian in a manner that I would reserve for Dionysian.

    Is there a bit of nuance that I’m missing here? For me there is little wisdom to be found with our (unwatered) wine swilling friend but Epicurus wasn’t such clown at all.

  91. Really, that’s what we’re seeing here. A return to the primitive, as Ed Driscoll might want to tag it. These poor girls were outlawed. Nobody was going to protect them from injury or exact either justice or vengeance for the harm done to them. That’s what it really means to be outside the law, to be treated like the town bike.

  92. (By the way, this isn’t to dispute the notion of us moderns as predominantly definable as pleasure-seeking creatures. Don’t think I’d debate that.)

  93. The idea I was trying to get at is the only reason your people and my people can live together in relative peace is because we’ve both agreed to abjure our right to vengeance in exchange for the protection of the state (or the king –same principle in pre-modern Europe). Because if we’re not part of a larger community-cooperative-fictive kinship structure, why shouldn’t I try to rape your sisters if I can, and you rape my daughters if you can?

    Blood vengeance is why.

    As I too often let pass that which I agree with and then make it confusing in the discussion, I should take this moment to do so. Yes, we’re on the same page here.

  94. The Epicureans weres the original materialists. Unlike the Dionysians who were looking for transcendence (i.e. god) in wine and sex orgies, much the same way that hippies were looking for transcendence (i.e. higher purpose, meaning) in pot and, well, sex orgies.

    And the pagan in me is more epicurean than stoic

  95. Okay, I hear what you’re saying.

  96. Another Dalrymple essay that’s on-point:

    Ultimately, the moral cowardice of the intellectual and political elites is responsible for the continuing social disaster that has overtaken Britain, a disaster whose full social and economic consequences have yet to be seen. A sharp economic downturn would expose how far the policies of successive governments, all in the direction of libertinism, have atomized British society, so that all social solidarity within families and communities, so protective in times of hardship, has been destroyed. The elites cannot even acknowledge what has happened, however obvious it is, for to do so would be to admit their past responsibility for it, and that would make them feel bad. Better that millions should live in wretchedness and squalor than that they should feel bad about themselves—another aspect of the frivolity of evil. Moreover, if members of the elite acknowledged the social disaster brought about by their ideological libertinism, they might feel called upon to place restraints upon their own behavior, for you cannot long demand of others what you balk at doing yourself.

  97. This may be quibbling on my part, but it seems to me that a more complete assessment of the problem would note that democratic capitalism is successful at supplying the material needs of life, and less successful at providing for man’s other needs.

    To quibble even further, it seems to me that “democratic capitalism”, as successful as it may be to its particular task, opening through competition a free path to inquiry into material things, building step by step the modern mathematical physical sciences, is merely an end of the chain and, as we can easily see, is not the beginning of it.

    What we can attribute to Hobbes and Locke, we can also attribute to their brethren Descartes, Bacon, and Spinoza in their roles establishing this marvelous liberal society standing firmly on the most unshakeable and fundamental rights, the “low and solid” (so we’re told) — whereby we see that the origin lays with Machiavelli — their Christopher Columbus.

    And what did he say? Ha, well, lots — a great deal of that in concealment. Still, what did he say?

    Since I know that many have written (on how princes should rule), I fear that by writing about it I will be held to be presumptuous by departing, especially in discussing such a subject, from the others. But since it is my intention to write something useful for him who understands, it has seemed to me to be more appropriate to go straight to the effective truth of the matter rather than to the imagination thereof. For many have imagined republics and principalities that have never been seen nor are known truly to exist. There is so great a distance between how one lives and how one ought to live that he who rejects what people do in favor of what one ought to do, brings about his ruin rather than his preservation; for a man who wishes to do in every matter what is good, will be ruined among so many who are not good. Hence it is necessary for a prince who wishes to maintain himself, to learn to be able not to do good, or use goodness and abstain from using it according to the commands of circumstances.

    But what else did he say?

    Albeit the jealous temper of mankind, ever more disposed to censure than to praise the work of others, has constantly made the pursuit of new methods and systems no less perilous than the search after unknown lands and seas; nevertheless, prompted by that desire which nature has implanted in me, fearlessly to undertake whatsoever I think offers a common benefit to all [spinto da quel naturale desiderio che fu sempre in me di operare, sanza alcuno respetto, quelle cose che io creda rechino comune benefizio a ciascuno], I enter on a path which, being hitherto untrodden by any, though it involve me in trouble and fatigue, may yet win me thanks from those who judge my efforts in a friendly spirit. And although my feeble discernment, my slender experience of current affairs, and imperfect knowledge of ancient events, render these efforts of mine defective and of no great utility, they may at least open the way to some other, who, with better parts and sounder reasoning and judgment, shall carry out my design; whereby, if I gain no credit, at all events I ought to incur no blame.

  98. Professor Glenn Reynolds: (on Rotherham)

    Indeed. A moral response to this behavior might involve those officials, among others, hanging from lampposts. The legal system is, ultimately, an ancient bargain: Renounce your mob violence and blood feuds and we will provide you with justice. It could be argued that such a default as this calls the whole bargain into question, and justifies self-help along ancient lines.

  99. Those who say Man Is the Most Dangerous Game™ are usually talking about pipefitters and clerks pushed to extremes — but the wild man is that dangerous or more, while walking down the street on a lovely spring morning.

    And yet he can’t hold a candle to the good man, the bureaucrat or constitutional lawyer, as he goes about his living of imagining that rules and regulations can make Earth into Heaven, merely by being recorded in dusty volumes read only by other bureaucrats.

  100. an ancient bargain

    Aeschylus: Eumenides

    Ancient, as well as — in the hands of the Poets — a pietistic-political bargain: not a philosophic business. For where the philosophers have questions, the pious (and the city) have only answers.

  101. The social workers who blamed the children. The care home staff who knew exactly what was going on, who put the children in the taxis. The police who claimed the abuse was consensual. The police who ‘lost’ the forensic clothing evidence. Every single member of Children’s Services who knew and did nothing.

    All of them are part of a criminal conspiracy with the rapists, and stringing the rapists up from lampposts might be a bloody good start. But, what about each and every one of their co-conspirators? Until each and every last one of them is banged up inside for a very long time, then Prof. Jay’s report is just a paperweight.

  102. Caroline Glick: The Dilemma of the Jewish Leftist

    This pertains even to the Rotherham rape stories, as you will discover by reading Caroline’s column. Ever the canaries in the coal mine of humanity, the Jews, even here.

  103. Nigerian Muslim Convert‘ Held by Police After North London Beheading

  104. ‘Nigerian Muslim Convert‘ Held by Police After North London Beheading

    “based on what we know, we do not believe this was a terror related incident”,

    Probably just a little light panic, definitely no terror.

  105. bh says September 4, 2014 at 8:17 pm
    All y’all get it.


    What’s not to get?
    You fuck with my daughters and the least your going to get is a Louisville Slugger applied to some of your favorite joints.

    You don’t have to big bh, you just have to convince em you aren’t afraid of getting hurt.

  106. I have a sneaking suspicion that in too many of these cases there wasn’t a father in the picture. Not all cases, but too many.

  107. Ernst, yeah, that was my thought too.

  108. Radical Imam Anjem Choudary: Terrorizing the Enemy is Part of Islam.

    Choudary: Well, you know, as a lecturer in Sharia law I would say to the people in Russia, the Muslims and the non-Muslims, that every action for a Muslim must be based upon the Koran, the word of Allah, and the teachings of the messenger Mohammed…who is the final messenger for mankind. I mean I would first invite the people to think about and embrace Islam but those who are already Muslim must know that Allah mentions in the Koran, in fact if you look in chapter 8 verse 60 he said prepare as much as you can “steeds of war” to terrorize the enemy. So terrorizing the enemy is in fact part of Islam. I mean this is something that we must embrace and understand as far as the jurisprudence of Islam is concerned.

    Choudary went on to say that Muslims make no distinction between civilians and armed forces since civilians elect the leaders who direct the armed forces

    See, relax, all is approved from on high.