Jordan Peterson, my friends, is finally on the mend. And I went through a long form essay he wrote about the rape gangs of the UK, took some notes, added some thoughts.

Of course there was a cover-up. Of course it continues—witness the legacy media’s impressive impression of a Trappist monastery ,whenever Rupert Lowe’s crowdfunded Rape Gang Inquiry surfaces. Zero mentions of it on the BBC, which was supposed to about, I don’t know, news around formerly Great Britain.

Not to mention the NY Times and Washington Post, no mention of it. Totally random right. All the news that’s fit to print … theat accords with the leftist agenda.

The silence is the same one that greeted every earlier report of the organized sexual predation that somehow became a feature of multicultural Britain.

How could it be otherwise?The events are so alien to ordinary Western experience, and so comprehensively awful, that the first human responses are minimization, avoidance, disbelief, and the search for something—anything—wrong with the victims to justify the intentional ignoring and pooh-poohing of these vicious and evil crimes in the moment.

Justify your identity as a good person.

This proved especially true of the modern liberal, whose untested faith in intrinsic human goodness, cultural equivalence, and tolerance-as-supreme-virtue left him uniquely ill-equipped for the data.

Those sunny views work only inside high-trust societies, which are rare and expensive to maintain. The default human is selfish; the default community is tribal—“I against my brothers; I and my brothers against my cousins; I, my brothers and my cousins against the world.”

Only relentless carrots and sticks turn that raw material into a high-trust society. Immediate gratification is easy. Considering others and the future is hard work, and takes rigorous discipline.

Actually, “High-trust” is a polite misnomer. What actually develops is an honest society, where people say what they mean and do what they say even with strangers. The West got there largely through a Judeo-Christian ethic that made truthfulness a matter of eternal consequence, paired with a judicial system that, between 1500 and 1750, removed 1–2 percent of men per generation via execution, and watched homicide rates collapse.

It wasn’t only Christian Europe though.

Tokugawa Japan achieved something similar with reputation-as-capital and collective neighborhood responsibility backed by beheading and crucifixion for fraud. In both cases, honesty stopped being optional and started being profitable.

Fair dealing between strangers enables trade; trade generates wealth. Where truth cannot be assumed, every transaction becomes a costly paranoid contest, and poverty remains the human default. The incentive system moved people away from their default nature.

Honesty, it turns out, is the only natural resource that actually works.Switzerland, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea are rich without mineral windfalls. Venezuela and Nigeria demonstrate the reverse: easy unearned money breeds stagnation and corruption.

Psychologists noticed the same priority in language: the strongest dimension people use to describe one another is moral evaluation—good versus bad, trustworthy versus exploitative. Everything else is secondary. We are wired to ask first whether the other person will betray us.

Success creates its own vulnerability. When honesty and safety become the air people breathe, they forget how rare and fragile both are. Trust slides into naïveté; empathy becomes an open invitation. Evolutionary game theory as shown in Robert Axelrod’s iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma tournaments),showed that cooperators generate wealth—until defectors arrive and, without reputation tracking and punishment, overrun the system.

At the individual level the predators wear the faces of the Dark Tetrad: narcissists who feel entitled, Machiavellians who manipulate, psychopaths without remorse, and sadists who for whom the suffering of their victims is the reward.

At the group level the older pattern reappears: the ingroup alone is fully human; the outgroup is legitimate prey. When personal pathology finds religious or tribal warrant, ordinary crime becomes something closer to a campaign.

Scale and Character

No one knows the exact number of native English girls sexually assaulted. Official agencies cannot even count them. Lowe’s report offers 250,000. Baroness Williams suggested roughly 7,000 victims a year; over three decades that lands in the same grim ballpark.

For perspective, the Rape of Nanking, China during World War II by the Japanese, involved an estimated 20,000–80,000 women in one month of wartime atrocity. The British figure, whatever its precise size, is not a scandal. It is a catastrophe.Even “rape” understates it.

And the preferred euphemisms—“Asian grooming gangs,” then simply “grooming gangs”—performed the useful work of diluting ethnic specificity and softening the organized, sustained brutality.

The documented networks were predominantly men of Pakistani Muslim heritage systematically targeting vulnerable white British girls, often beginning at ages eleven to fourteen. Survivor testimony from Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford, Telford and elsewhere describes the same pattern: girls passed from man to man, gang-raped, tortured, degraded, and marked with racial and religious contempt—“gora,” “kuffar,” “white slags,” “easy meat.” The point was not merely sexual gratification.

Cruelty, humiliation, and the assertion of cultural superiority were the point.These were not isolated opportunistic assaults. They were industrial in scale and multi-year in duration: victims moved between houses, hotels and towns; individual girls subjected to dozens or hundreds of men. A larger circle of kinsmen and community members knew and remained silent—cousin marriage and tight social bonds making secrecy the default. UK authorities mirrored that silence, prioritizing “community relations” over the children they were paid to protect.

Virtually none of the offenses were prosecuted as the racially and religiously aggravated hate crimes they plainly were.That is not institutional failure. That is collusion in service of an illusory multicultural peace. The ethnic, cultural and religious dimensions were central, not incidental.

What cannot be named cannot be understood. The polite terms—grooming, even rape—fail. What occurred was organized, systematic, sadistic pedophilic sexual assault aimed at degradation and psychological destruction, justified by the presumed inferiority of the victims and their society.

A more accurate label is sexual conquest: the ancient tribal practice of treating the outgroup’s daughters as territory to be taken and spoiled, conducted under conditions of nominal peace against a host society too trusting, too tolerant, and finally too frightened to say the words.To refuse the cover-up is to accept that human depravity is real, that cultures are not interchangeable, and that the multicultural project requires scrutiny.

Cascading Implications and What Must Be Done

Honest admission forces uncomfortable questions. What does this mean for mass immigration from cultures that provided both the predators and the justificatory framework?

For the multicultural experiment itself?

For the resurgence of ordinary patriotism now routinely labeled “far right” as a way to obfuscate from the abhorrent cover-up and complicity in these ghastly crimes by British authorities.

Continued official failure to deliver justice virtually guarantees that less temperate responses will eventually fill the vacuum.

Lumping traditional patriots with actual fascists is a dangerous rhetorical habit; it erodes the very distinctions that once kept the genuine extremists isolated.

The minimum; and I mean minimum requirements are straightforward.

The perpetrators—especially the organizers—must face justice unsoftened by identity considerations or “community relations,” and the condemnable bigotry of low expectations excuse offered by “leftists” that this is their “culture.”

Those who knew and stayed silent, and those in authority who chose willful blindness, must be held to account. The crime combined organized predation, sexual sadism, pedophilia, betrayal of public trust, and explicit racial-religious hatred.

A more precise hate crime is difficult to invent. Severity of punishment should match severity of offense. In the absence of that response, an over-correction becomes probable.

But punish not only the rapists and those who quietly abetted them within their communities. the sledge hammer must fall on those ideologues who covered up for them, and used their bully positions to silence those speaking out, as they have done repeatedly to Tommy Robinson, as they tried to alert the public. Send them to those areas of Pakistan where these nobles they imported to Britain came from, and let them try to import the “multi-cultural” leftsit values. My hope is it goes for them there as we all assume it it will. Leave it in the comments what you think might happen.

Suppressing the majority’s demand that cultural norms be upheld—that serial, hate-motivated rapists of children face consequences—does not preserve peace. It merely ensures that when the tide turns, it will turn harder and be more vicious than if you get pout in front of that backlash now.

The writing is already on the wall. Pretending otherwise is no longer an option, only a more elaborate form of the original cover-up.