13 May, 2012
It's all our fault really, guvnor
On yestermorning's Today programme, a couple of Muslim talking heads are given the opportunity to mitigate the crimes of the Rochdale groomers.
The summary on the Today website reflects the tone nicely,
I have to say that the waffle did rather wash over me, but the gist I distilled from all the therapeutic and cultural psychobabble was these poor "Asian" guys were just culturally confused and it's actually White people's fault.
On this morning's BH, Paddy O'Connell has been trying to bully CPS-wallah Nazir Afzal into agreeing that it's all the fault of social services. Where has this assumption come from that all of the victims were either "in care" or "on the run"? This seems to have been accepted as established fact by most "Leftish" commentators and is being used to mount one of the distractive critiques. Well, I can't be arsed combing through all the media reports again, but as I recall the girls were described as being all from "chaotic backgrounds" and rather quaintly in one report as from "council estate backgrounds". Chavs with inadequate parental supervision, in other words.
Parenting standards may well be open to criticism, but this is not a conveniently identifiable failure of "White" institutions that we can channel supposedly corrective effort into in order to divert attention from the criminality of the perpetrators and wider attitudinal and cultural problems within the "Pakistani community".
There was a comment on one of the CiF threads to the effect that many "Asian" and other immigrant "sub-communities" were so close-knit that you couldn't fart without everybody knowing about it. I have no doubt that most decent members of the "Pakistani community" are as appalled as the rest of us at what has gone on. Equally I have no doubt that many in that "community" had a pretty fair idea what was going on and acquiesced in it, out of solidarity, out of fear of ostracism or reprisal and out of a shared sense that the "White slags" were "asking for it".
Two can play at that game. Be warned.
The Righteous have invested so much in the concept of "racism", they have striven so hard for 40 or more years to turn it into a monster so toxic that for a White man, especially a White man in a "middle class" profession, it is a close call whether it is worse to be accused of being a racist, a nonce or a rapist. And now it's all come round to bite their pets, and indirectly them, so painfully on the bum, and they are struggling desperately to re-establish the status quo ante.
The squirming of the Righteous inadvertently exposes a useful truth: racism and cultural antagonism are overlapping concepts. Whether the contempt for their victims evinced by the "Rochdale Nine" represents racial disdain or cultural misunderstanding is a distinction of limited real importance, except perhaps to those liberals and race-baiters who are keen to retain "racism" as a crime solely of White people and "cultural difference" as a difficulty faced by "Coloured" people, a difficulty inadequately addressed by the White majority.
This is a dangerous game, a game which you've lost, guys. And an irresponsible one too. There are more, similar cases in the pipeline, in Rochdale, in Oxford and elsewhere. If you continue the business-as-usual approach, denying the existence of the problem, attempting to suppress reporting and discussion of it, and above all attempting to transfer the blame to the host community, then the reaction may go somewhat beyond the boycotting, picketing and occasional bricking of the odd "Asian" takeaway in flashpoint areas.
And personally, I have reached the stage where I no longer care whether it kicks off or not.
Before we end, let's have another quick look at that first quote from the BBC website from a quality perspective, shall we?
The offences were centred in Rochdale, or more precisely in Heywood, a small town within the Metropolitan Borough of Rochdale. The trial was actually held at Liverpool Crown Court. Not a hanging offence, that, but indicatively sloppy.
I guess at a pinch we could interpret that as actually meaning "their cultural influences", ie the cultural background of the Pakistani criminals, rather than as a spelling error for "there". The resulting sentence would be a tad unidiomatic but, hey, I wouldn't want to jump to any conclusions.
Hmm. Let's get a second opinion here. My journalistic literacy correspondent Etaoin Shrdlu comments:
"Bollocks! A spellchecker's no substitute for a bleedin' education, mate."
The summary on the Today website reflects the tone nicely,
The barrister defending the man described as the ringleader of the nine men jailed for up to 19 years for a horrific series of sexual assaults against young girls, told the court in Rochdale that the man believed he was being prosecuted because of his faith and race - a Muslim of Pakistani origin.
Is it racist to focus on the fact that nine Asian men were grooming white girls from outside their community? Are their cultural influences at play behind a series of crimes that have caused a great deal of shock because of the systematic and brutal way the girls were treated?
Shiban Akbar, of Bangladeshi origin, speaks for the Muslim Council of Britain and Alyas Karmini, an imam in Bradford, examine the controversial issue.
[My emphasis]
I have to say that the waffle did rather wash over me, but the gist I distilled from all the therapeutic and cultural psychobabble was these poor "Asian" guys were just culturally confused and it's actually White people's fault.
On this morning's BH, Paddy O'Connell has been trying to bully CPS-wallah Nazir Afzal into agreeing that it's all the fault of social services. Where has this assumption come from that all of the victims were either "in care" or "on the run"? This seems to have been accepted as established fact by most "Leftish" commentators and is being used to mount one of the distractive critiques. Well, I can't be arsed combing through all the media reports again, but as I recall the girls were described as being all from "chaotic backgrounds" and rather quaintly in one report as from "council estate backgrounds". Chavs with inadequate parental supervision, in other words.
Parenting standards may well be open to criticism, but this is not a conveniently identifiable failure of "White" institutions that we can channel supposedly corrective effort into in order to divert attention from the criminality of the perpetrators and wider attitudinal and cultural problems within the "Pakistani community".
There was a comment on one of the CiF threads to the effect that many "Asian" and other immigrant "sub-communities" were so close-knit that you couldn't fart without everybody knowing about it. I have no doubt that most decent members of the "Pakistani community" are as appalled as the rest of us at what has gone on. Equally I have no doubt that many in that "community" had a pretty fair idea what was going on and acquiesced in it, out of solidarity, out of fear of ostracism or reprisal and out of a shared sense that the "White slags" were "asking for it".
Two can play at that game. Be warned.
The Righteous have invested so much in the concept of "racism", they have striven so hard for 40 or more years to turn it into a monster so toxic that for a White man, especially a White man in a "middle class" profession, it is a close call whether it is worse to be accused of being a racist, a nonce or a rapist. And now it's all come round to bite their pets, and indirectly them, so painfully on the bum, and they are struggling desperately to re-establish the status quo ante.
The squirming of the Righteous inadvertently exposes a useful truth: racism and cultural antagonism are overlapping concepts. Whether the contempt for their victims evinced by the "Rochdale Nine" represents racial disdain or cultural misunderstanding is a distinction of limited real importance, except perhaps to those liberals and race-baiters who are keen to retain "racism" as a crime solely of White people and "cultural difference" as a difficulty faced by "Coloured" people, a difficulty inadequately addressed by the White majority.
This is a dangerous game, a game which you've lost, guys. And an irresponsible one too. There are more, similar cases in the pipeline, in Rochdale, in Oxford and elsewhere. If you continue the business-as-usual approach, denying the existence of the problem, attempting to suppress reporting and discussion of it, and above all attempting to transfer the blame to the host community, then the reaction may go somewhat beyond the boycotting, picketing and occasional bricking of the odd "Asian" takeaway in flashpoint areas.
And personally, I have reached the stage where I no longer care whether it kicks off or not.
Before we end, let's have another quick look at that first quote from the BBC website from a quality perspective, shall we?
...told the court in Rochdale that the man believed...
The offences were centred in Rochdale, or more precisely in Heywood, a small town within the Metropolitan Borough of Rochdale. The trial was actually held at Liverpool Crown Court. Not a hanging offence, that, but indicatively sloppy.
Are their cultural influences at play behind a series of crimes that have caused a great deal of shock because of the systematic and brutal way the girls were treated?
I guess at a pinch we could interpret that as actually meaning "their cultural influences", ie the cultural background of the Pakistani criminals, rather than as a spelling error for "there". The resulting sentence would be a tad unidiomatic but, hey, I wouldn't want to jump to any conclusions.
Hmm. Let's get a second opinion here. My journalistic literacy correspondent Etaoin Shrdlu comments:
"Bollocks! A spellchecker's no substitute for a bleedin' education, mate."
# posted by Edwin Greenwood @ 13:15 
Comments:
<< Home
"the man believed he was being prosecuted because of his faith and race"
And herein lies the future roots of discord within our society: people commit crimes but profess they are unaware of how the UK is (either deliberately or innocently) and so believe any prosecution is because 'they don't like us'
When this feeling grows and spreads (aided in no small part by the strangely complicit British MSM) among the invited and their close cousins the uninvited, then trouble will be a-brewin'
And herein lies the future roots of discord within our society: people commit crimes but profess they are unaware of how the UK is (either deliberately or innocently) and so believe any prosecution is because 'they don't like us'
When this feeling grows and spreads (aided in no small part by the strangely complicit British MSM) among the invited and their close cousins the uninvited, then trouble will be a-brewin'
# posted by 
: 13 May, 2012 20:25
: 13 May, 2012 20:25
"Where has this assumption come from that all of the victims were either "in care" or "on the run"? "
Well, it's been helped on its way by opinionists like Mary Dejevsky in the 'Indy', who couldn't wait to rush to print top point out that if only the white majority were meek, submissive and modest it probably wouldn't have happened.
Well, it's been helped on its way by opinionists like Mary Dejevsky in the 'Indy', who couldn't wait to rush to print top point out that if only the white majority were meek, submissive and modest it probably wouldn't have happened.
"Those who deny there is a racial – or perhaps, more accurately, a cultural – aspect to these crimes are wrong."
Jolly white of you to say so, Mary.
"But the racial/cultural blame must be shared."
Oh no it mustn't. The UK is not a shared culture, a multiculture. It is a North European secular Christian culture. Our cultural standards are not a matter for negotiation with every uninvited hill-savage wog who turns up and decides he wants to settle here. They adapt to us, not the other way round.
I'm sure we — those who are actually entitled to have an input — are unimpressed with the parenting of these particular young girls. A bit more of the "You're not going out dressed like that" and the "I want you back home by ten o'clock, young lady" may well have been in order. Nonetheless our culture allows teenagers, both boys and girls, a certain freedom to wander unsupervised and to dress according to the standards approved of in our culture. The savages are fully entitled to hold us and our children in contempt as they see fit, but they are not entitled to act on that contempt, not without retribution.
If a European girl, confident in her cultural superiority, chooses to flounce along the main drag of Riyadh or Mirpur in a skirt the hem of which finishes just below her armpits, then she has no comeback if she doesn't like the consequences. If an Afpaki thinks that unsupervised, by his standards underdressed, by our standards underage young women whom he sees on a Lancashire street are there for the taking, then he equally has no complaint if he doesn't like, or understand, the reaction of the natives.
"But they're village wogs and they know no better." Oh, they know what they're doing, alright. Surely you wouldn't want me to accuse you of the racism of low expectations, eh, Mary?
No negotiations. No compromises. Our gaff, our rules.
Post a Comment
Jolly white of you to say so, Mary.
"But the racial/cultural blame must be shared."
Oh no it mustn't. The UK is not a shared culture, a multiculture. It is a North European secular Christian culture. Our cultural standards are not a matter for negotiation with every uninvited hill-savage wog who turns up and decides he wants to settle here. They adapt to us, not the other way round.
I'm sure we — those who are actually entitled to have an input — are unimpressed with the parenting of these particular young girls. A bit more of the "You're not going out dressed like that" and the "I want you back home by ten o'clock, young lady" may well have been in order. Nonetheless our culture allows teenagers, both boys and girls, a certain freedom to wander unsupervised and to dress according to the standards approved of in our culture. The savages are fully entitled to hold us and our children in contempt as they see fit, but they are not entitled to act on that contempt, not without retribution.
If a European girl, confident in her cultural superiority, chooses to flounce along the main drag of Riyadh or Mirpur in a skirt the hem of which finishes just below her armpits, then she has no comeback if she doesn't like the consequences. If an Afpaki thinks that unsupervised, by his standards underdressed, by our standards underage young women whom he sees on a Lancashire street are there for the taking, then he equally has no complaint if he doesn't like, or understand, the reaction of the natives.
"But they're village wogs and they know no better." Oh, they know what they're doing, alright. Surely you wouldn't want me to accuse you of the racism of low expectations, eh, Mary?
No negotiations. No compromises. Our gaff, our rules.
<< Home
