50 years ago, reading Orwell's "1984" in school, I never would have believed that I'd live through it in my lifetime. The "truth" is what the media want us to believe. Appalling.
The amusing thing about that is that Kamala was incoherent in the edited version. One can only imagine what sort of Bidenesque farrago of nonsense happened live.
it was obvious even in the edited version. At one point she started babbling and her vocal level dropped into the background while the interviewer starts explaining her in a voice over. As softball as he tried to be, my reaction was - if this were a job interview no way would I hire her, no matter what the job was.
Based on the coherence of his interviews I would not, because he would be "over qualified". I'd assume he'd get bored with the job and stop following the procedures and try to make it his own. That isn't how McDonalds works. There are some jobs I'd hire him for and many I would not.
The last building built by the Trump Organization was in Chicago. It lost money. At best, Trump is a salesmen who uses lies and his ego to sell to dupes.
You might want to review the book "Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father's Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success" Every time Trump gets a windfall, he would lose it with bad business decisions.
I agree that Trump always tried to sell himself as a guy whose dad gave him a few bucks to invest and turned it into a fortune and a brandname while in fact, his dad was super rich and Trump didn't do very well with that money.
That conceded he is clearly intelligent, can negotiate, and for all his flaws, he can speak extemporaneously and express thoughts coherently.
No one should ever say that Trump is coherent. Look up the people like John McWhorter who has pointed out all of Trump's verbal tics. And Trump is incapable of negotiating anything. He has no significant treaties approved by the Senate while president and was totally incapable of making a deal with Congress to get anything he wanted. Trump has probably not even read his book "The Art of the Deal" let alone been able to implement it.
The Ministry of Truth is the ministry of propaganda. As with the other ministries in Oceania, the name Ministry of Truth is a deliberate misnomer because in reality, it serves the opposite: It is responsible for any necessary falsification of historical events. However, like the other ministries, the name is also apt because it decides what "truth" is in Oceania.
This seems to be a new twist in the phenomenon of Wikipedia Edit Wars. Typically, these are wars of attrition, with either side repeatedly re-editing the same sentence or paragraph until the other side gives up or is banned.
But in this UK Grooming Gang Wikiwar, rather than a frontal assault, the Pro-Grooming Gang editors are apparently attempting a flanking maneuver by creating and reinforcing a new page substantively adjacent to the original page. If they can drive enough traffic to it and get the SPLC-type orgs to link to it, they can displace the original page in legitimacy and thereby in the public consciousness.
Fair point, but I still think the retconning of the mass atrocities of the Pakistani grooming gangs into a supposed "moral panic" of the victims is an attempt to outflank the obvious ethnic guilt. The Wikipedia page is merely a front in that attempt.
The linked documentary, Charlie Peters' "Grooming Gangs: Britain's Shame" makes clear that Rotherham was (is) merely the most visible part of the iceberg.
"Maiden Mother Matriarch" host Louise Perry did an excellent hourlong interview of Peters in February 2023, "The Largest Sex Abuse Scandal of This Century."
That’s the one just for Rotherham, the only city which issued a truthful report. Steve is citing the general article. It isn’t really Wikipedia’s fault: they’re quoting MSM sources. Blame the authorities and their fake reports.
Prince Andrew needs to work on his suntan and eat curry daily.
I've been watching a British podcast interviewing authors and journalists called "The Scandal Mongers" for a year and finally suggested he cover Rotherham. He said it's on his list. Maybe there are no authors to interview. The biggest scandal is that law enforcement did nothing for years to avoid appearing racist.
Sounds like you're in for a fun five years. The only opposition that has emerged on my YT feed is David Starkey, who was already there stuttering away about the Tudors. If you're lucky, a real leader will emerge.
The big question is whether Labour will change First Past The Post rule, knowing that they'll lose in 4 years. If they change the rule, they could participate in uniparty government as its left flank.
Hate to blame the victims but how could English men allow this to happen to their sisters and daughters? Did the world wars kill all the brave men and their potential offspring?
Most of the victims probably didn't have fathers or older brothers in the home. The men with gumption left for greener pastures decades ago when industrial Britain collapsed.
Have you paid attention to "recent events" in the UK? Poor/working class native British white men aren't allowed to get angry about "certain things" and show it, without the heavy hand of the law being disproportionately used against them. Now, even an angry tweet could land one of them in the clink for years.
Yeah, it is tough to think that Englishmen will stand up to this when their own state will criminalize and imprison them when they do much as try to say anything about it.
That said, it is also a serious stain on the character of the British that they will let their daughters and sisters be raped by foreigners and just let the state cow them. I understand most with a spine left years ago, but ffs how could those who remain let this keep happening to them?
It’s the fault of the authorities who wouldn’t issue honest reports. Wikipedia has rules that they have to use MSM or official reports. Rotherham, the only honest city, has an honest Wikipedia page. This isn’t a Wikipedia problem.
Theodore Beale (Vox Day) attempted to start his own version of Wikipedia called Infogalactic. However, without an army of autists to update it, it ceased to be a useful font of information.
Wikipedia has come full circle. About 20 years ago, they were regarded as an unreliable source and no college professor would accept Wikipedia references. By about ten years ago, that reputation had reversed. Now Wikipedia has just become another ruling class mouthpiece. As Charles Murray pointed out, it's trustworthy only on topics that don't have a politically correct position.
I think that pre-Wikipedia lots of information was definitely heavily curated it and certain things were on or off limits.
But there was a variety of sources and none was canonical. You could spend a while in university library scratching round to find different facts and points of view on things.
The problem today is that Wikipedia is so exhaustive and covers topics that the Encyclopaedia Britannica or Who’s Who in 2004 simply didn’t have space or resources for.
I fully confess that in 2024 when I am curious about some minor celebrity often the only thing I look at is their Wikipedia entry.
But I am starting to use the AI search to Perplexity quite a lot. It aggregates and combines information from a number of sources including but not limited to Wikipedia. It’s often unreliable but it does provide a broader view on some topics.
Nope. Guilt is never a powerful political impulse. More population-size competition vs China, India and the Soviet block, amidst falling fertility rates in the West.
Have to disagree there; guilt and shame contributed much to the current state of the USA. LBJ administration decided in 1965 that it was racist to limit most immigration to Europe. Nothing to do with fertility.
Basically, what happened was that the politicians in power decided that migrations till the 1960s into the Western World worked well to very well, so why not make the doors wide-open? Especially, if there is no such thing as race (NOSTAR)? It happened everywhere - France, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, US or UK.
Bat-Yior wrote about this phenomenon very early - she called it Eurabia. It was a political program, alongside De Gaulle's realignment with the Arab world. But there was also Black African migration too, as well as non-Arab muslim migration into UK, Germany and Benelux. The arguments in favor were very similar everywhere.
When Churchill discussed the problem of "coloured people" settling in the UK in a private cabinet meeting, his Home Secretary responded with the following political considerations:
"Then David Maxwell-Fyfe, the Home Secretary, gave a figure of 40,000 compared to 7,000 before the Second World War and raised the possibility of immigration control. He said: 'There is a case on merits for excludg. riff-raff. But politically it wd. be represented & discussed on basis of colour limitation. That wd. offend the floating vote viz., the old Liberals. We shd. be reversing age-long trad[ition] tht. B[ritish] S[ubjects] have right of entry to mother-country of Empire. We shd. offend Liberals, also sentimentalists.'
He added: 'The col[onial]. pop[ulations] are resented in L[iverpool], Paddington & other areas by those who come into contact with them. But those who don't are apt to take a more Liberal view.'"
It seems the tendency to want to bring in the world's problems in order to be liberators and good people predates even the technological/economic conditions with enabled mass third world immigration (cheap enough transport, economic surplus etc) and was therefore present at the very beginning.
It's my understanding that they began to bring in people to staff the NHS when it was new. Why no liberal considered their native lands needed their skills much more than Britain did is a mystery. Here in the US, we also brought them in for medical training and allowed too many to stay. Brain drain is worse than colonialism, which adds to human and financial capital.
Very good point. Stripping smaller countries of what intellectual human capital they possessed just meant their homelands became even more dysfunctional and generated more emigrants to the West. Now we have what is essentially a globalized version of Euro welfare states in which vast amounts of treasure are sent to people and places that are incapable of leveraging it into permanent positive results.
Well, there is the 'civilizational suicide' angle, which I think is probably the appropriate one. Then there is the 'Englishmen are now cowards' angle, which is also useful, but is a corrolary of the suicide angle. If these people want to eliminate themselves, there is little to be done for them.
I've adopted a rule for reading articles online. If you are reading along and the text makes you think of an obvious question, and the article never asks and answers that question, the answer to that question would undermine or negate the point of view preferred by the author. Here the obvious question is "how many white grooming gangs were there and how many victims?". Looks like Steve found the answer and sure enough...
There are plenty of lone white sickos in the English-speaking world these days, but it's hard to find a gang of them together in one place, outside of a prison.
The second half of the 20th century saw child sexual abuse perpetrated and disproportionate amounts by white catholic priests.
And the church hierarchy almost everywhere responded by trying to cover it up, move the abusers around, and deny that a problem existed until it was too late.
But at the same time, with rare exceptions, the abusive priests acted alone and did not conspire with other priests in the abuse itself.
On the Unz site a commenter responded to a similar comment by pointing out that (according to him) priests were no more likely to molest than any other educators and that the church in their treatment and coverup, were following the mainstream advice of the time period. I don't recall if he had a reference
Frankly the rate of molestation by priests was significantly less than the rate by public school teachers. It's just that the media wasn't interested in covering the latter for some reason.
I was just in Chicago monitoring the protesters outside the DNC. I got very ill but will write on it soon. What struck me was how the entire American Left was systematically shoved aside by the Palestinian protesters. They took over the gay and abortion march, pushing baby carriages past aging Code Pinkers dressed, I kid you not, like giant abortion pills. They threw ANTIFA out of the coalition and took the whole thing over. Before the convention, they brought the massive Chicago Alderman system to its knees.
They sure were organized. And in Chicago, they're working closely with the new arrivals from South America. As there was in LA, there's going to be a violent showdown between Hispanic and black gangs. The Palestinians will side with the Central and South American gangs.
So many thoughts. The one that bubbled to the top is that it's really great for them to show the average American who they are. It's amazing how little they care about bad publicity. Even the mafia knew the advantage of keeping things a little quiet
The first I ever read about this was an article in the pretty left-wing Guardian quoting a left-wing politician (Jack Straw) who represented a constituency with a lot of Pakistanis.
It is worth quoting at length because it treats the issue at length and with a kind of balance that would be impossible today:
“Straw said there was a "specific problem" in some areas of the country where Pakistani men "target vulnerable young white girls"……Speaking on the BBC's Newsnight programme yesterday, Straw said: "Pakistanis, let's be clear, are not the only people who commit sexual offences, and overwhelmingly the sex offenders' wings of prisons are full of white sex offenders. “But there is a specific problem which involves Pakistani heritage men ... who target vulnerable young white girls. We need to get the Pakistani community to think much more clearly about why this is going on and to be more open about the problems that are leading to a number of Pakistani heritage men thinking it is OK to target white girls in this way."
Straw called on the British Pakistani community to be "more open" about the issue. "These young men are in a western society, in any event, they act like any other young men, they're fizzing and popping with testosterone, they want some outlet for that, but Pakistani heritage girls are off-limits and they are expected to marry a Pakistani girl from Pakistan, typically," he said.
"So they then seek other avenues and they see these young women, white girls who are vulnerable, some of them in care ... who they think are easy meat.
"And because they're vulnerable they ply them with gifts, they give them drugs, and then of course they're trapped."……
The sentences were passed down a day after the prime minister, David Cameron, said "cultural sensitivities" should not hinder police action in such cases…..The Barnardo's chief executive, Martin Narey, said the case was more about vulnerable children of all races who were at risk from abuse. Street grooming was "probably happening in most towns and cities" and was not confined to the Pakistani community.
"I certainly don't think this is a Pakistani thing. My staff would say that there is an over-representation of people from minority ethnic groups – Afghans, people from Arabic nations – but it's not just one nation," said Narey…..”
I'm not suggesting, and I do not think anybody is, that it is a problem within a community," he told the Today programme. What I am saying is that, when you take a crime type – street grooming – and see that the vast majority of people convicted are from a particular community, then there appears something we should do about those offenders.
"But that is the very danger, that we say that all street groomers are Asian men. What we have found is that our investigations have led to convictions, generally speaking, for this type of crime.
Barnardo Chief Executive Martin Narey is quoted by the Guardian, "What we have found is that our investigations have led to convictions, generally speaking, for this type of crime."
What a vile thing to say. May I rephrase?
"What we have found is that it's the daughters of Deplorables who are the victims of this type of crime. Whether or not our investigations lead to convictions, generally speaking, Who Cares?"
Between this and the new revelations that 60 Minutes edited Kamala Harris’s answers during her interview, nothing can be fully trusted as accurate.
50 years ago, reading Orwell's "1984" in school, I never would have believed that I'd live through it in my lifetime. The "truth" is what the media want us to believe. Appalling.
As the quip goes, 1984 was supposed to be a cautionary tale, not an instruction manual
The amusing thing about that is that Kamala was incoherent in the edited version. One can only imagine what sort of Bidenesque farrago of nonsense happened live.
it was obvious even in the edited version. At one point she started babbling and her vocal level dropped into the background while the interviewer starts explaining her in a voice over. As softball as he tried to be, my reaction was - if this were a job interview no way would I hire her, no matter what the job was.
But would you hire Trump to run a McDonald's?
Based on the coherence of his interviews I would not, because he would be "over qualified". I'd assume he'd get bored with the job and stop following the procedures and try to make it his own. That isn't how McDonalds works. There are some jobs I'd hire him for and many I would not.
What jobs would one hire Trump to do other than be a character on a reality TV Show.
And Trump lost money on his DC hotel even though so many events were being held there and many rooms were being rented there just to pander to Trump.
sales and sales management positions. real estate development
The last building built by the Trump Organization was in Chicago. It lost money. At best, Trump is a salesmen who uses lies and his ego to sell to dupes.
Yes.
You might want to review the book "Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father's Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success" Every time Trump gets a windfall, he would lose it with bad business decisions.
I agree that Trump always tried to sell himself as a guy whose dad gave him a few bucks to invest and turned it into a fortune and a brandname while in fact, his dad was super rich and Trump didn't do very well with that money.
That conceded he is clearly intelligent, can negotiate, and for all his flaws, he can speak extemporaneously and express thoughts coherently.
No one should ever say that Trump is coherent. Look up the people like John McWhorter who has pointed out all of Trump's verbal tics. And Trump is incapable of negotiating anything. He has no significant treaties approved by the Senate while president and was totally incapable of making a deal with Congress to get anything he wanted. Trump has probably not even read his book "The Art of the Deal" let alone been able to implement it.
Makes me wonder if they've been doing this to us for decades; we just didn't have any outlets to hear different enough things to know better.
This is an example of why I gleefully ignore Wiki pleas for funds while equally gleefully supporting my favorite Substack writers.
I quit donating to Wikipedia years ago as its leftist extremism became unendurable.
I used to give a few bucks a year to Wikipedia, but I switched to giving my pittance to Web Archive.
Wikipedia = The Ministry of Truth
The Ministry of Truth is the ministry of propaganda. As with the other ministries in Oceania, the name Ministry of Truth is a deliberate misnomer because in reality, it serves the opposite: It is responsible for any necessary falsification of historical events. However, like the other ministries, the name is also apt because it decides what "truth" is in Oceania.
"Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal
this seems to be the main wiki article - first version is from Jan 2013 and it is still regularly updated.
By contrast Steve seems to have found a rogue article that was only created in June 2024.
Sure rogue articles are a bad thing but it is not quite the same as wikipedia allowing the main article to be this badly changed.
This seems to be a new twist in the phenomenon of Wikipedia Edit Wars. Typically, these are wars of attrition, with either side repeatedly re-editing the same sentence or paragraph until the other side gives up or is banned.
But in this UK Grooming Gang Wikiwar, rather than a frontal assault, the Pro-Grooming Gang editors are apparently attempting a flanking maneuver by creating and reinforcing a new page substantively adjacent to the original page. If they can drive enough traffic to it and get the SPLC-type orgs to link to it, they can displace the original page in legitimacy and thereby in the public consciousness.
No, he found an article for Rotherham alone, the only place that issued an honest report.
Wikipedia has to use MSM or official reports.
Fair point, but I still think the retconning of the mass atrocities of the Pakistani grooming gangs into a supposed "moral panic" of the victims is an attempt to outflank the obvious ethnic guilt. The Wikipedia page is merely a front in that attempt.
Here in UK, the single word that represents the whole issue is always Rotherham.
The linked documentary, Charlie Peters' "Grooming Gangs: Britain's Shame" makes clear that Rotherham was (is) merely the most visible part of the iceberg.
"Maiden Mother Matriarch" host Louise Perry did an excellent hourlong interview of Peters in February 2023, "The Largest Sex Abuse Scandal of This Century."
Apple podcasts -- https://tinyurl.com/56rvx4vr
YouTube -- https://youtu.be/2ATESONo0hA?si=L1wjTdYNw6Lt8c6j
For reasons that are hard to fathom, Peters comes across as passionate, even enraged, on this topic.
Yes exactly.
That’s the one just for Rotherham, the only city which issued a truthful report. Steve is citing the general article. It isn’t really Wikipedia’s fault: they’re quoting MSM sources. Blame the authorities and their fake reports.
Prince Andrew needs to work on his suntan and eat curry daily.
I've been watching a British podcast interviewing authors and journalists called "The Scandal Mongers" for a year and finally suggested he cover Rotherham. He said it's on his list. Maybe there are no authors to interview. The biggest scandal is that law enforcement did nothing for years to avoid appearing racist.
Ask what the current PM worked as, two jobs before the current one. Then you get the answer... Two Tier Keir and all that.
Sounds like you're in for a fun five years. The only opposition that has emerged on my YT feed is David Starkey, who was already there stuttering away about the Tudors. If you're lucky, a real leader will emerge.
The big question is whether Labour will change First Past The Post rule, knowing that they'll lose in 4 years. If they change the rule, they could participate in uniparty government as its left flank.
Hate to blame the victims but how could English men allow this to happen to their sisters and daughters? Did the world wars kill all the brave men and their potential offspring?
Most, but not all, of the girls didn’t have fathers in their lives.
Yep, the Pakis are careful choosing their victims. Cowards.
Most of the victims probably didn't have fathers or older brothers in the home. The men with gumption left for greener pastures decades ago when industrial Britain collapsed.
Probably a lot of fatherless kids.
I wonder who the director of public prosecutions was then?
Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds) likes to point out that government exists to protect criminals from the wrath of the people.
Have you paid attention to "recent events" in the UK? Poor/working class native British white men aren't allowed to get angry about "certain things" and show it, without the heavy hand of the law being disproportionately used against them. Now, even an angry tweet could land one of them in the clink for years.
Yeah, it is tough to think that Englishmen will stand up to this when their own state will criminalize and imprison them when they do much as try to say anything about it.
That said, it is also a serious stain on the character of the British that they will let their daughters and sisters be raped by foreigners and just let the state cow them. I understand most with a spine left years ago, but ffs how could those who remain let this keep happening to them?
Wikipedia.
Consensus fact.
It’s the fault of the authorities who wouldn’t issue honest reports. Wikipedia has rules that they have to use MSM or official reports. Rotherham, the only honest city, has an honest Wikipedia page. This isn’t a Wikipedia problem.
Theodore Beale (Vox Day) attempted to start his own version of Wikipedia called Infogalactic. However, without an army of autists to update it, it ceased to be a useful font of information.
Here is its article on Steve: https://infogalactic.com/info/Steve_Sailer
Nice!
Yep - but you are right, the article demonstrates that 80% of the links are no longer updated...
Wikipedia has come full circle. About 20 years ago, they were regarded as an unreliable source and no college professor would accept Wikipedia references. By about ten years ago, that reputation had reversed. Now Wikipedia has just become another ruling class mouthpiece. As Charles Murray pointed out, it's trustworthy only on topics that don't have a politically correct position.
I think that pre-Wikipedia lots of information was definitely heavily curated it and certain things were on or off limits.
But there was a variety of sources and none was canonical. You could spend a while in university library scratching round to find different facts and points of view on things.
The problem today is that Wikipedia is so exhaustive and covers topics that the Encyclopaedia Britannica or Who’s Who in 2004 simply didn’t have space or resources for.
I fully confess that in 2024 when I am curious about some minor celebrity often the only thing I look at is their Wikipedia entry.
But I am starting to use the AI search to Perplexity quite a lot. It aggregates and combines information from a number of sources including but not limited to Wikipedia. It’s often unreliable but it does provide a broader view on some topics.
Even the celebrity stuff is suspect. A lot of Diddy mentions were wiped off of Wikipedia "personal" sections so fast it gave whiplash.
I think it's their proximity to the Poynter Center, a Soros-funded "journalism think tank" associated with the oddly "nonprofit" Tampa Bay Times.
If you can say one good thing about Hurricane Milton, it poetically drove a crane into the offices of the Tampa Bay Times.
It is remarkable how Britain threw its doors open to the dregs of its empire despite knowing better than anyone else what they would be dealing with.
I’d love to read an honest report about how that happened. Will likely never be written.
I think it was guilt.
Nope. Guilt is never a powerful political impulse. More population-size competition vs China, India and the Soviet block, amidst falling fertility rates in the West.
Have to disagree there; guilt and shame contributed much to the current state of the USA. LBJ administration decided in 1965 that it was racist to limit most immigration to Europe. Nothing to do with fertility.
Basically, what happened was that the politicians in power decided that migrations till the 1960s into the Western World worked well to very well, so why not make the doors wide-open? Especially, if there is no such thing as race (NOSTAR)? It happened everywhere - France, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, US or UK.
Bat-Yior wrote about this phenomenon very early - she called it Eurabia. It was a political program, alongside De Gaulle's realignment with the Arab world. But there was also Black African migration too, as well as non-Arab muslim migration into UK, Germany and Benelux. The arguments in favor were very similar everywhere.
When Churchill discussed the problem of "coloured people" settling in the UK in a private cabinet meeting, his Home Secretary responded with the following political considerations:
"Then David Maxwell-Fyfe, the Home Secretary, gave a figure of 40,000 compared to 7,000 before the Second World War and raised the possibility of immigration control. He said: 'There is a case on merits for excludg. riff-raff. But politically it wd. be represented & discussed on basis of colour limitation. That wd. offend the floating vote viz., the old Liberals. We shd. be reversing age-long trad[ition] tht. B[ritish] S[ubjects] have right of entry to mother-country of Empire. We shd. offend Liberals, also sentimentalists.'
He added: 'The col[onial]. pop[ulations] are resented in L[iverpool], Paddington & other areas by those who come into contact with them. But those who don't are apt to take a more Liberal view.'"
It seems the tendency to want to bring in the world's problems in order to be liberators and good people predates even the technological/economic conditions with enabled mass third world immigration (cheap enough transport, economic surplus etc) and was therefore present at the very beginning.
It's my understanding that they began to bring in people to staff the NHS when it was new. Why no liberal considered their native lands needed their skills much more than Britain did is a mystery. Here in the US, we also brought them in for medical training and allowed too many to stay. Brain drain is worse than colonialism, which adds to human and financial capital.
Very good point. Stripping smaller countries of what intellectual human capital they possessed just meant their homelands became even more dysfunctional and generated more emigrants to the West. Now we have what is essentially a globalized version of Euro welfare states in which vast amounts of treasure are sent to people and places that are incapable of leveraging it into permanent positive results.
It was Blair. He’s a villain.
Well, there is the 'civilizational suicide' angle, which I think is probably the appropriate one. Then there is the 'Englishmen are now cowards' angle, which is also useful, but is a corrolary of the suicide angle. If these people want to eliminate themselves, there is little to be done for them.
These sorts of situations remind of the old line that liberals are people who can't take their own side in argument.
I've adopted a rule for reading articles online. If you are reading along and the text makes you think of an obvious question, and the article never asks and answers that question, the answer to that question would undermine or negate the point of view preferred by the author. Here the obvious question is "how many white grooming gangs were there and how many victims?". Looks like Steve found the answer and sure enough...
There are plenty of lone white sickos in the English-speaking world these days, but it's hard to find a gang of them together in one place, outside of a prison.
The second half of the 20th century saw child sexual abuse perpetrated and disproportionate amounts by white catholic priests.
And the church hierarchy almost everywhere responded by trying to cover it up, move the abusers around, and deny that a problem existed until it was too late.
But at the same time, with rare exceptions, the abusive priests acted alone and did not conspire with other priests in the abuse itself.
On the Unz site a commenter responded to a similar comment by pointing out that (according to him) priests were no more likely to molest than any other educators and that the church in their treatment and coverup, were following the mainstream advice of the time period. I don't recall if he had a reference
Frankly the rate of molestation by priests was significantly less than the rate by public school teachers. It's just that the media wasn't interested in covering the latter for some reason.
possibly it was that the church could transfer the molester and perhaps that Catholics assumed no way would a holy man do such a thing?
So from an HBD point of view, would you say Pakistanis are more organized than white people ;)
I was just in Chicago monitoring the protesters outside the DNC. I got very ill but will write on it soon. What struck me was how the entire American Left was systematically shoved aside by the Palestinian protesters. They took over the gay and abortion march, pushing baby carriages past aging Code Pinkers dressed, I kid you not, like giant abortion pills. They threw ANTIFA out of the coalition and took the whole thing over. Before the convention, they brought the massive Chicago Alderman system to its knees.
They sure were organized. And in Chicago, they're working closely with the new arrivals from South America. As there was in LA, there's going to be a violent showdown between Hispanic and black gangs. The Palestinians will side with the Central and South American gangs.
So many thoughts. The one that bubbled to the top is that it's really great for them to show the average American who they are. It's amazing how little they care about bad publicity. Even the mafia knew the advantage of keeping things a little quiet
The first I ever read about this was an article in the pretty left-wing Guardian quoting a left-wing politician (Jack Straw) who represented a constituency with a lot of Pakistanis.
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2011/jan/08/jack-straw-white-girls-easy-meat
It is worth quoting at length because it treats the issue at length and with a kind of balance that would be impossible today:
“Straw said there was a "specific problem" in some areas of the country where Pakistani men "target vulnerable young white girls"……Speaking on the BBC's Newsnight programme yesterday, Straw said: "Pakistanis, let's be clear, are not the only people who commit sexual offences, and overwhelmingly the sex offenders' wings of prisons are full of white sex offenders. “But there is a specific problem which involves Pakistani heritage men ... who target vulnerable young white girls. We need to get the Pakistani community to think much more clearly about why this is going on and to be more open about the problems that are leading to a number of Pakistani heritage men thinking it is OK to target white girls in this way."
Straw called on the British Pakistani community to be "more open" about the issue. "These young men are in a western society, in any event, they act like any other young men, they're fizzing and popping with testosterone, they want some outlet for that, but Pakistani heritage girls are off-limits and they are expected to marry a Pakistani girl from Pakistan, typically," he said.
"So they then seek other avenues and they see these young women, white girls who are vulnerable, some of them in care ... who they think are easy meat.
"And because they're vulnerable they ply them with gifts, they give them drugs, and then of course they're trapped."……
The sentences were passed down a day after the prime minister, David Cameron, said "cultural sensitivities" should not hinder police action in such cases…..The Barnardo's chief executive, Martin Narey, said the case was more about vulnerable children of all races who were at risk from abuse. Street grooming was "probably happening in most towns and cities" and was not confined to the Pakistani community.
"I certainly don't think this is a Pakistani thing. My staff would say that there is an over-representation of people from minority ethnic groups – Afghans, people from Arabic nations – but it's not just one nation," said Narey…..”
I'm not suggesting, and I do not think anybody is, that it is a problem within a community," he told the Today programme. What I am saying is that, when you take a crime type – street grooming – and see that the vast majority of people convicted are from a particular community, then there appears something we should do about those offenders.
"But that is the very danger, that we say that all street groomers are Asian men. What we have found is that our investigations have led to convictions, generally speaking, for this type of crime.
Barnardo Chief Executive Martin Narey is quoted by the Guardian, "What we have found is that our investigations have led to convictions, generally speaking, for this type of crime."
What a vile thing to say. May I rephrase?
"What we have found is that it's the daughters of Deplorables who are the victims of this type of crime. Whether or not our investigations lead to convictions, generally speaking, Who Cares?"
Wikipedia is CIA agitprop