Maybe imperial policing is the wrong phrase, but there's three ways you can stop the grooming gangs leading to intercommunal violence, depending on how aware the population is of the crimes. If the population are aware, then punish it very harshly. If they aren't aware, don't deal with it publicly or otherwise pretend there are no racial aspects to it. The police and government have gone for options two and three.
Here are two quotes from the Casey report:
“There was an attitude at the time of wanting to deal with CSE, but there was a general feeling it was best done without publicity, so there would be no ‘bad’ publicity to Rotherham.” A former senior officer'
'“x didn’t want (the) town to become the child abuse capital of the north. They didn’t want riots.” A senior officer'
The Bradford riots are also sometimes cited as a reason there wasn't more police action. We live in a different information environment now where it is more difficult to hide these cases, but it was easier in the past. I would be interested in knowing how aware of the grooming gangs the majority of people were in these towns.
That said, another weakness of the imperial policing argument is how disgustingly weak the sentences are, even with the most recent cases.
"The correct explanation of why the Pakistani rape gangs were allowed to abuse white girls is that anti-white racism pervades society."
- I don't know. Couldn't it also just be laziness and fear of having their careers ended?
If a policeman arrests a white Briton for posting something naughty online, he'll get good marks and the chance of the consequences rebounding on him and his family are slim to none.
If he goes and rounds up a Muslim for rape? Well, there's a good chance he's going to get doxed and, have his career ruined, and family threatened. And the government will likely just give the perp a slap on the wrist, if anything at all. Then that vermin is back on the street and now has a vendetta against the policeman.
Yes - part of the reason a section of society is allowed to get away with appalling crimes is because their own "community" itself doesn't recognise equality before the law - OUR law. If an indigenous person is hauled up for doing something criminal, the police, judges, politicians themselves usually don't fear threats and possibly fatal reprisals from people connected with the miscreant/s.
In other words they're frit.
It is complete and cowardly deflection to assume that the indigenous would behave in the same way to that section of society, as that section behave to the indigenous.
Policing, how we all consider it, is only possible if police are supported by the major constituency and the power center. If a policeman is risking career ending scrutiny and backlash if he does his job in certain circumstances, but is supported if he does his job in other circumstances, the he will only do his job in those specific circumstances.
Example: Why would a policeman try to chase down a black suspect who's wanted for assault in a major, blue US city? If he find him, there is an excellent chance he may have to get violent to apprehend him, possibly even be forced to shoot him. This will instantly be cast by the media and the politicians as racist, police violence. He will be tried, convicted and sentenced to carrier death and danger to his family by the press and politicians catering to the left before Internal Affairs even starts looking at the case. The public will often just buy into the story the media creates. His life is over.
Afterall, the news and politicians will usually try to not mention the crime anyway, or as little as possible, as they do their best to hide violence caused by racial minorities. WTF should he even bother?
Now going after a white person for some other crime... THAT is different. The chance of having to shoot that person or be violent at all is MUCH lower and, even if he DOES have to shoot the white perp dead, the media and public at large won't care, as the white perp is not part of a racially protected class. He gets good numbers, accolades, less chance for being harmed. All bonuses for him.
Not saying it's RIGHT, but I'm saying I totally understand the forces being applied to police in these situations.
I think the position in the US is different enough from the UK for us to be able to apply certain interpretations to our own police (and I included UK politicians and judiciary in my condemnation).
How many so-called grooming gangs operate in the US the way they did/do here? How many apprehended Others are shot in the UK?
Plus as you write, even if a white person commits a crime the chance of having to shoot the perp or be violent at all is much lower - AND there won't be the threat of retaliation from their family or community. There may be exceptions with certain non-indigenous sectors from East Europe.
This is very thoughtful, but I'm not convinced about "If rape gangs were allowed to persist because of anti-white racism, that would seem to suggest that we should embrace a certain degree of white racial consciousness in response" - I feel that if middle-class anti-racist-racism is defined against a (partly imaginary, or remembered from schooldays) white working-class racism, then the more racist working-class whites are seen to be, the more the middle classes will hate them? In any case, the more white working-class racism we get, excusable or not, the smaller will be the political coalition willing to tackle junk immigration. The reluctance of post-liberals to appear classist is well observed in this essay, but how would a class-realist post-liberal think deal with migration? He might end up reading Theo Dalrymple and conclude that the liberal slogans about 'white people don't want to work' are not quite as snobbishly unfair as he thought, which means that he'll need to add some scheme to tackle white welfarism to his remigration plans.
How about those involved in grooming gang rape, or those involved in the failure to prosecute grooming gangs face the same tariff? Be it life, 10 years, 15 years or whatever - it would certainly focus the minds...
Superb. The locus classicus of why you should subscribe to PJ.
Maybe imperial policing is the wrong phrase, but there's three ways you can stop the grooming gangs leading to intercommunal violence, depending on how aware the population is of the crimes. If the population are aware, then punish it very harshly. If they aren't aware, don't deal with it publicly or otherwise pretend there are no racial aspects to it. The police and government have gone for options two and three.
Here are two quotes from the Casey report:
“There was an attitude at the time of wanting to deal with CSE, but there was a general feeling it was best done without publicity, so there would be no ‘bad’ publicity to Rotherham.” A former senior officer'
'“x didn’t want (the) town to become the child abuse capital of the north. They didn’t want riots.” A senior officer'
The Bradford riots are also sometimes cited as a reason there wasn't more police action. We live in a different information environment now where it is more difficult to hide these cases, but it was easier in the past. I would be interested in knowing how aware of the grooming gangs the majority of people were in these towns.
That said, another weakness of the imperial policing argument is how disgustingly weak the sentences are, even with the most recent cases.
This is jargon ridden, unclear in its argument and unreadable.
"The correct explanation of why the Pakistani rape gangs were allowed to abuse white girls is that anti-white racism pervades society."
- I don't know. Couldn't it also just be laziness and fear of having their careers ended?
If a policeman arrests a white Briton for posting something naughty online, he'll get good marks and the chance of the consequences rebounding on him and his family are slim to none.
If he goes and rounds up a Muslim for rape? Well, there's a good chance he's going to get doxed and, have his career ruined, and family threatened. And the government will likely just give the perp a slap on the wrist, if anything at all. Then that vermin is back on the street and now has a vendetta against the policeman.
Why would the police even bother?
Yes - part of the reason a section of society is allowed to get away with appalling crimes is because their own "community" itself doesn't recognise equality before the law - OUR law. If an indigenous person is hauled up for doing something criminal, the police, judges, politicians themselves usually don't fear threats and possibly fatal reprisals from people connected with the miscreant/s.
In other words they're frit.
It is complete and cowardly deflection to assume that the indigenous would behave in the same way to that section of society, as that section behave to the indigenous.
Policing, how we all consider it, is only possible if police are supported by the major constituency and the power center. If a policeman is risking career ending scrutiny and backlash if he does his job in certain circumstances, but is supported if he does his job in other circumstances, the he will only do his job in those specific circumstances.
Example: Why would a policeman try to chase down a black suspect who's wanted for assault in a major, blue US city? If he find him, there is an excellent chance he may have to get violent to apprehend him, possibly even be forced to shoot him. This will instantly be cast by the media and the politicians as racist, police violence. He will be tried, convicted and sentenced to carrier death and danger to his family by the press and politicians catering to the left before Internal Affairs even starts looking at the case. The public will often just buy into the story the media creates. His life is over.
Afterall, the news and politicians will usually try to not mention the crime anyway, or as little as possible, as they do their best to hide violence caused by racial minorities. WTF should he even bother?
Now going after a white person for some other crime... THAT is different. The chance of having to shoot that person or be violent at all is MUCH lower and, even if he DOES have to shoot the white perp dead, the media and public at large won't care, as the white perp is not part of a racially protected class. He gets good numbers, accolades, less chance for being harmed. All bonuses for him.
Not saying it's RIGHT, but I'm saying I totally understand the forces being applied to police in these situations.
I think the position in the US is different enough from the UK for us to be able to apply certain interpretations to our own police (and I included UK politicians and judiciary in my condemnation).
How many so-called grooming gangs operate in the US the way they did/do here? How many apprehended Others are shot in the UK?
Plus as you write, even if a white person commits a crime the chance of having to shoot the perp or be violent at all is much lower - AND there won't be the threat of retaliation from their family or community. There may be exceptions with certain non-indigenous sectors from East Europe.
This is very thoughtful, but I'm not convinced about "If rape gangs were allowed to persist because of anti-white racism, that would seem to suggest that we should embrace a certain degree of white racial consciousness in response" - I feel that if middle-class anti-racist-racism is defined against a (partly imaginary, or remembered from schooldays) white working-class racism, then the more racist working-class whites are seen to be, the more the middle classes will hate them? In any case, the more white working-class racism we get, excusable or not, the smaller will be the political coalition willing to tackle junk immigration. The reluctance of post-liberals to appear classist is well observed in this essay, but how would a class-realist post-liberal think deal with migration? He might end up reading Theo Dalrymple and conclude that the liberal slogans about 'white people don't want to work' are not quite as snobbishly unfair as he thought, which means that he'll need to add some scheme to tackle white welfarism to his remigration plans.
How about those involved in grooming gang rape, or those involved in the failure to prosecute grooming gangs face the same tariff? Be it life, 10 years, 15 years or whatever - it would certainly focus the minds...
I wonder what Dr Freud would make of this tiresome obsession with Pakistani/Muslim rape gangs...I must ask my shrink! 😇
Perhaps it's the tiresome fact that they have inflicted the most dreadful abuses on a great many girls. Tiresome, isn't it?
The obsession aspect seems to come from the perpetrators...just saying.
What would Sigmund Freud have made of the obsession with anti-semitism?
U a homunculus Farage’s bot? It looks like it…
Are you educated? It doesn't look like it.
Franks a Roman Catholic - how does the saying go “does the pope f**k….?
Ask a priest frank