In a recent article about the problem of Pakistani pimps picking up young girls outside school and turning them into hookers, I wrote:
A lot of right-wingers want to come at the Paki Pimp Gang phenomenon from the Christian Feminist angle of “oh our poor sweet innocent princesses, corrupted by these evil foreigners.”
A reader responded, outraged that I would label these girls “guilty.”
How anyone could believe that young girls (age 11-14) from the white underclass who are groomed, given drugs, and taken advantage of at an extremely vulnerable age by men decades older are “just as guilty” is actually more tragic than it is offensive.
These are not 16 and 17 year old experienced sluts, they are naive innocents being corrupted by foreign enemies of war who should have never had access to them in the first place. They target girls from troubled households right at the onset of puberty – so at a time when they are experiencing hormonal and emotional changes with no involved parents to guide and protect them. I would bet that the vast majority of these young victims were inexperienced virgins before they were targeted and abused by the Paki rape gangs, even if it’s only because they were 12 years old.
The statement in question was made in a brief filler article. I can’t always give full explanations of every argument I make, but I repeat the same arguments over and over, so I assume that most people are familiar with them.
It’s been a while since we talked about this, so I want to give a full explanation as to why I would identify these girls as criminals and co-conspirators with the Pakistanis, as opposed to victims of the Pakistanis.
People want sound bites, and if you don’t give them sound bites, they will create their own sound bites while knowing that there are a large number of people who won’t read a thousands of words long essay explaining a position.
So, before I give you the actual, lengthy explanation, let me give you the two paragraph sound bite:
If you don’t mark young girls who join drug gangs as “guilty of a crime” and give them some form of punishment, young girls will continue to join these gangs in the future. If girls are punished for getting involved with drug-running gangs, girls will know that there is a consequence for getting in the car with a Pakistani man who is prowling around outside their school.
Whether you believe these girls were totally unaware of sex or not, “don’t get in the car with a stranger” is something every child knows is a rule. When you make these girls “victims” after they’ve broken the rules, you are ensuring that as long as there are Pakistanis, there will be girls getting in cars with Pakistanis. By removing consequences for breaking the rules, and instead rewarding the rule-breakers with a prized status, you are sentencing future young girls to this fate. The purpose of punishing a crime is not to take revenge, it is to prevent others from doing it in the future.
This is all so obvious that it’s difficult to process how someone would not immediately recognize this as true.
So now, let me walk you through the long version.
The Problems with Consent Theory
The first point to recognize is that the traditional view of sex has been replaced over the last several decades with a new doctrine, surrounding the slippery concept of “consent.”
Female consent is the theory that a woman has a right to decide who she has sex with. I believe that I am the first to identify this concept as “Consent Theory.” This supposed “right” of women was never acknowledged at any point in the history of Western civilization, up until really the 1960s. I went into some detail about this topic in a recent piece about the push to normalize pedophilia.
There is not a good historical context for “rape.” Typically, if a man had sex with a virgin he was not married to, he was forced to marry her (something we recently discussed). If she had already been betrothed to someone else, then he’d committed a crime, and he’d probably have to pay a fine (which could amount to years of indentured servitude), and probably also marry the girl. If a married woman had sex with another man, they would both be considered guilty of a crime (in Biblical times, they’d be killed, and at other points, it was fines). Women were generally expected to keep out of situations where they were in the presence of men who were not their husband or family members, and were considered responsible for any sex that happened because they were alone with a man.
If a woman was a prostitute, then illicit sex was not considered possible. It was fully the woman’s responsibility to not get drunk and accidentally have sex with a man. If the man beat her up in the process of sex (i.e., the way we more recently defined “rape”), that would be a crime of assault, and if he’d grabbed her off the street, that could be kidnapping. There was no concept of trying to figure out “if she really wanted it or not,” because that was not considered something that was knowable.
A natural sexual order is now outside of living memory, so people have created the post-factual fantasy that women’s rights are some kind of “Western value system,” and have used women’s right to contrast the West with Islam. In fact, women’s role in traditional European and American society was almost identical to what we think of as Islamic norms; their entire bodies were expected to be covered, save for their face, hands and feet, and they were not allowed to speak to strange men, or wander around outside the house.
In traditional society, sex-related rules were all logical, and followed a consistent pattern. Everyone understood what was going on. You can try to judge it morally if you want, but we live in a society that has child transsexuals, so judging historical sexual norms seems a bit wacky.
When women were given the ability to decide who they had sex with during the sexual revolution, society had to create an entirely new set of rules by which to regulate sex. Consent Theory is the basis of that. That then led to the legalization of homosexuality, because the men were “consenting” to sodomize one another.
Consent is an emotional state in theory, but it ultimately ends up being a kind of metaphysics. The word “consent” means “to agree to,” but there is no direct way to determine if a woman made an agreement to have sex with a man.
The bigger problem is that women more or less always make very poor decisions, and are almost always incapable of explaining these decisions. If they make a decision that is judged by others to have been a poor decision, they will always claim that someone else is responsible for the decision.
Please, try to get images from film and television out of your head, and just think of all the women you’ve known in your own life. Can you think of one single time when a woman took personal responsibility for a bad decision she made? You can’t, and no one can, because no woman has ever done that. Even in the context of a political setting, where a woman has a team of advisors telling her what to say, you are going to have a hard time finding this. Look at Hillary Clinton.
Go look at the court reporting of any woman accused of any crime. Here’s a somewhat high-profile case from earlier this month:
I recently listened to a podcast that Ethan Ralph did with a porn star, and this woman went through and explained that she did not want to be in pornography, that she actually hated sex, but was not personally responsible for the fact that she was making pornography. Being a porn star is a very specific situation to be in, and she explained that it was the fault of men in her life, and men in general, which left her with no other possible life path than to be in pornography.
What this woman was describing ultimately meant that she did not consent to being in pornography. What really hit me listening to her was that she truly believed this. I was actually legitimately sympathetic with the fact that in her brain, it was all someone else’s fault.
If a woman cannot take responsibility for bad decisions, then how can she be allowed to make important decisions? It just simply does not make any sense. You cannot have responsibility without accountability. Those two things have to be connected.
Are you starting to grasp the logic of the olden days a little bit?
Understanding Why We Punish Crimes
While they cannot handle the concept of responsibility for a bad decision, we must recognize that women are very capable of understanding consequences for behavior. They follow the law, generally. They do that because they see that people who don’t follow the law are punished for not following the law.
These girls who join Pakistani drug gangs as prostitutes are “guilty” in the sense that they should be punished for it, not in the sense that women should be expected to make good decisions in any situation, or in the sense that there is a need to feel unsympathetic.
There have to be consequences for crimes, or people will continue to commit the crimes. Punishing crime is not about revenge. Crime is punished so that other people see the punishment and do not follow that behavior pattern. That is a basic, ancient concept of justice. (Note: the modern concept of long-term incarceration, and “keeping people off the streets” is new, and arguably both stupid and unethical.)
This same issue of punishing women for sex-related crime came up during Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, where he argued for outlawing abortion. They asked him if he would punish the woman seeking the abortion or only the doctor, and he said “What do you mean? You have to punish the woman.”
If girls aged 11-14 join Pakistani drug gangs, they must be punished for it. If they are not punished for it, and are instead awarded the sacred status of “victim” for having joined the gang and serving as drug addicted prostitutes in a criminal enterprise, other girls will see that. When the Pakistani shows up outside the school, the girl will run through the consequences system in her brain, and understand that the worst possible outcome is that she gets caught and is given the status of “victim.”
The argument from those who believe these girls deserve “victim” status is that the girls don’t know what is going on. The assumption is that a girl, aged 11-14, is incapable of understanding the concept of rules. I don’t really believe they don’t know what sex is, and don’t understand any of the subtext of a man trying to pick them up in a car. Especially after this has been all through the media for years, and surely parents and teachers alike have warned girls about it, this idea that the girls have no idea what is going on is clearly somewhat absurd.
However, it ultimately doesn’t matter if they are totally unaware of sex completely, because every single child on earth knows you’re not supposed to get in a car with a stranger.
You can read the accounts of the girls.
Here’s a random snippet, just to give a bit more context:
One day I ran into a furniture shop in my hometown in the south of England and hid behind a pine wardrobe, breathless, scared and hiding from the man looking for me.
I was at school when this happened, a 16 year old white girl, and my “boyfriend” was 24 and a violent, drug-dealing thug – from his own accounts. He was also of Pakistani Muslim origin.
I was a naïve teenager, from a family where the circumstances could be described as “difficult” at best, especially if my absent father failed to take his medication. My mother struggled to cope with her life, and was often depressed and suicidal. I can look back now and see I was vulnerable, with low self-esteem and desperate to get away from home.
I met Zimmy through Zamir, who I truly believed to be a “friend”, although since friends tend not to take you round to their uncle’s and offer you for sex in exchange for heroin, I can see now that he most definitely was not.
Zimmy was Zamir’s dealer and didn’t hesitate in asking me out, although like “friend”, “out” meant sitting in his Audi smoking a drug I thought was weed but that he later told me was heroin. Being such a good ‘boyfriend’, he also later introduced me to crack.
It was 1996. Looking back I was stupid, but at the time it was an escape from the misery of my family life and I thought everything would be fine. Over the next few weeks Zimmy showered me with gifts, money and drugs, but also started to tell tales of torturing his drug rivals and threatening me and my family.
These accounts have been published extensively in all of the British tabloids.
All of these accounts start with a girl getting in the car with a strange, foreign man. And actually, they didn’t just take them and rape them. They would take them to their kebab restaurants, and give them alcohol and/or drugs. Then the girls would continue to go back to the men, and get involved in drug running and prostitution for years. The pimps would always be the “boyfriend,” as is typical of pimps. The girls would regularly be asked to get other girls from their school to join the gang. They would also move drugs. That’s what was actually happening. This is what has been ubiquitously called “grooming,” which is an ill-defined term, and seems to have been invented specifically to remove any responsibility from these girls for joining a drug gang and committing illegal acts for years on end.
However, even if this was as simple as “he told her to get in the car, then he took her and raped her – before that, she didn’t even know what a penis was” (which is effectively the narrative the media is presenting), the girl still got in the car with a stranger – something that she knows is against the rules.
There was never any point in my childhood when I would ever get into a strange man’s car, not when I was 5 and not when I was 11-14. Not before I knew what sex was, nor after, would I ever have gotten in a car with a stranger outside the school.
Calling these girls “victims” simply condones and encourages the behavior.
Punishment as Prevention
I don’t think the girls should be given prison sentences. Most of them commit these crimes when they are underage, and I generally agree with the policy of underage criminals not facing as stiff of penalties. I just simply do not agree with “no penalties” and “literal incentivization.”
What women respond to more than anything else is social shaming, and that is where the punishment should be.
What should happen is this: someone should write “filthy whore” across the girl’s forehead with a red marker. A picture of the girl with that written across her forehead should be shown on TV, and it should be posted on the wall at her school. The newsreader on TV should note that the image would be posted at the girl’s school, in the entryway, where everyone can see it.
If you did that even once, I can promise you, you would have a 99% drop in instances of girls getting in cars with Pakistani men.
Of course, none of us have the ability to implement these rules. If we were in charge of the country, we could simply deport all of these Pakistanis, which would make it a moot point. But we all have the power to reject this “victim” narrative.
Remember that girls are still getting in cars with Pakistanis. It is still happening, every day. You can believe they are all poor little innocents if you want, but they are getting in these cars, going to these restaurants, taking the drugs and having sex with the Pakistanis all while knowing that if they get caught, they will get a reward instead of a punishment.
You need to understand this: every time you agree that these girls are victims who should be coddled and told how horrible it is that they are victims, and how they are good girls and bad men took advantage of them, you are feeding this industry.
Even if you don’t think it feels right emotionally, you all know what I’m saying is true. It comes down to something very, very simple: which is likely to result in fewer girls getting in cars with Pakistanis:
- Telling girls that if they join a Pakistani drug gang, they are victims, or
- Using a red marker to write “filthy whore” across the forehead of any girl who joins a Pakistani drug gang and showing the image on TV and posting it at the school?
Everyone knows the answer to that. It’s very simple.
What is the Counterargument Here?
People will respond to these things emotionally. Someone will link this and say that I’m a very bad man. But no one will offer a counterargument. No one will explain how labeling the girls “victims” serves to do anything other than incentivize this industry.
Someone might claim that punishing these girls in order to prevent future girls from joining the gangs is “the end justifying the means.” That doesn’t actually apply here, but I will mention it before someone says it. I’ve already been through my views on that concept, fully: “the end doesn’t justify the means” is a stupid modern adage that just is not true. This should be especially clear when you’ve got a situation where some people have estimated that 1 million girls have gotten involved with these Pakistani gangs. I would think that it should be very clear that making a few girls cry and feel bad about themselves is a means that justifies ending that.
People will also claim that I just don’t like women, or something-something-whatever. I will tell you this: I have only ever told the truth. Many of you started out reading this without agreeing with me, and now understand. It is a very, very bad thing to have these girls doing this. It is bad for the girls’ families, it’s bad for society at large, it’s bad for the men these girls are supposed to be marrying, and it’s bad for the girls themselves. I do not think that we should be involved in perpetuating it.
As long as there are Pakistanis in Britain, they are going to be engaging in this behavior. It becomes pointless to talk about trying to stop Pakistanis from doing this. Bringing these creatures into Britain is like releasing a bunch of starving wolves in a nursery. The only argument regarding the Pakistanis should be that they are removed from the country. The situation is insane. It is insane to bring these people into your country. No one ever should have tolerated this. Everyone should have known it would lead to rivers of blood, including that of the hymens of little white girls.
It is all tragic. I just want to make that clear: these stories of these girls are true human tragedies. I don’t want anyone to think I’m discounting that. The way I present this is intended to separate people from the emotions involved, because the emotions lead to wrong thinking. But I do understand the emotions. I don’t think the girls “deserved it,” and I do think that girls should be protected in any way possible. My arguments are intended for that purpose. But the harsh reality is that the biggest danger to any girl or woman is her own decision-making process, and the only known way to restrict that decision-making process is through establishing consequences for bad behavior. Whatever the details of the situation, getting in a car with a Pakistani man outside the school is always a bad behavior.
Emotional thinking, accepting this narrative of victimhood, leads to this behavior pattern continuing in generations of girls. The entire purpose of punishing crime that has already been committed is to prevent future crime from occurring. It’s not about revenge.