Our Multicultural Reactor 5

On the Horrors Inherent to Faulty Managerial Structures

Cloaking themselves proudly in the language and rhetorical garb of human rights and tolerance, the British State has, in recent decades, been culpable for what would, in their terminology, constitute a humanitarian catastrophe. Adorning themselves with universalistic bromides like a peacock fluffing its resplendent tail feathers to bamboozle a potential mate or rival, the British Establishment oversaw a decades-long crime against humanity. As Westerners, it irks and irritates us to think that Our People could be the victims of barbarism on such a scale. Such language is reserved for places like Iraq, Cambodia, Afghanistan, or anywhere in sub-Saharan Africa.

What shall we call it? How should we frame it? Am I or others to attempt to scale the heights of a Solzhenitsyn or some other chronicler of systems of sadism and sickness? Do we have the earnestness to not resort to postmodern irony coping, and allow ourselves to hit the ground with the warranted thud? Can it even be real? Can we even allow ourselves to ruminate on it honestly? The mind scrambles for comparisons and framing techniques through the endless mental halls of pop-culture pap, vague historical allusions, and cliched quotations.

What can only really accurately be called The Rape Of Britain is entering the public consciousness as a fact, as something that has happened as a historical and ongoing event. It is no longer something being warned about in the sense of Powellian prophesy but discussed as a cultural reality.

We’re all aware of the snippets now, and we zoom in on a transcript of a court document, which will say something like “the victim had five men inside her, then she was given heroin and beaten with a chair leg”. We decrease the magnification of our gaze, and that snippet joins a broader case associated with a town or city. We then further reduce the magnification and notice that the case itself is but one of many in that area, and that area is coalescing with hundreds of others across the entire country. The girl in the court reports is described as “Sophie B” or “Alison G” and fades into being just a unit in a vast network, and the horrors she underwent fade with her, too.

The so-called “grooming gang” scandal in Britain is often referred to as “Industrial Scale Rape” which is apt. The term juxtaposes two sets of imagery, one of mechanised processes — pistons, cogs, pumping systems in combination with dirt, grease, and grime — with the term “rape”, which is a violation of the human form and its flesh, particularly female. Thus, Industrial Scale Rape is the mechanisation of the inorganic and instrumental, defiling the flesh of the feminine, almost like an alien entity devouring the organic. This is apt because this is precisely the dynamic between the victims and the victimisers.

The primarily, but not entirely, Pakistani rape gangs are an imposition brought to us by the managerial state, the result of a process based on twisted ideology, flawed first principles, and cynical manipulation of historical narratives.

Recently, a blindingly bright torch has been shone on Britain’s dirty, repellent little secret that, in different ways, all sections of society resent. There is an element of outsiders entering the home and pointing toward filth, dirt, and unwashed underwear strewn around the place. Men on the right of politics are sensitive to allegations of apathy and cowardice, and the entire left/liberal spectrum (which in Britain is almost all of it) feels under attack; the grubby secret is out!

I’ve been reminded again of Chernobyl and how the first Soviet bureaucrats must have responded when Sweden called to ask if everything was okay. They detected some odd readings on their gamma-ray spectrometers — there was an "undesired outcome" in a process somewhere. What was it, and where was it?

The immediate cause of the Chernobyl disaster was using graphite instead of boron for the tips of the rods that moderated the core. It was graphite instead of boron to reduce costs. The middle management of the USSR was under severe pressure to trade off safety to reduce costs because the USSR was economically strained due to ideological concerns. Within the system itself, both the employees at the power plant and the managerial bureaucrats were reluctant to acknowledge the calamity, and a game of “hot-potato” began, with each level of the system desperately trying to avoid accountability. Later, at the top level, the USSR lied to the West German Government about the degree of radiation escaping, which meant the Germans sent robots whose circuits immediately melted upon contact with the outflow. This resulted in Soviet men being deployed upon the plant’s roof as “meat robots” to clean away graphite that wasn’t officially supposed to be there.

The difference, then, between a natural disaster and outright criminality is that when a system’s flaws are inherent and ideological and encompass the very reason for its existence, the legitimacy of the regime itself is called into question. Moreover, when external forces begin questioning the internal affairs of a regime in crisis, that crisis can become existential.

The British Establishment has a long, long history of poking its nose into the affairs of other nations with an eye on destabilising them, lecturing them, and generally adopting the attitude of hectoring school headmistress, cossetted and arrogant within her preferred set of ideals. Yet, despite this, the Establishment is now revealed to be a politically correct basketcase coasting on the aura of distant greatness. At the same time, its native girls are brutalised as if they’re the conquered spoils of war. However, no battle was lost, and any native land that was ceded was done so readily and enthusiastically by the regime itself.

From a purely historical perspective, it is nothing short of demented behaviour.

When an outsider such as Elon Musk asks “What happened here? How can such barbarism have occurred?” The British liberal Establishment is in the position of Soviet politburo staff being asked what the odd cloud is emanating from Ukraine.

Nobody told Anatoly Dyatlov to avoid the safety protocols, but at the individual level, he understood how the incentives were structured and what the Party did and did not want to hear. Dyatlov was not responsible for the shoddy design, but the people who were had no say over the economic constraints placed upon them, and those who were did not decide the ideological parameters of the USSR.

In Britain, not every council worker and police officer was indifferent to girls being gang raped and tortured (though some indeed were) but they did understand how the incentives of the system were structured. They knew which reports would invite them to Christmas parties and which would see them passed over for promotion. The bureaucracy itself was riddled with an ideology based on an assumption of political correctness and that when in doubt, a manager had to side with non-white people.

However, even the political correctness and sadistic incentive structure took place in a broader paradigm of multicultural dogma that presupposed everyone on Earth was a 1990s liberal under the skin. When Pakistanis began raping and torturing English girls, the behavior was obviously out of kilter with political mores, and so the question arose of which was correct: Reality or Liberalism?

In the end, deciding that politically correct, ‘90s liberalism formed the basis of reality superseded what was happening before the eyes of the government officials and council workers because that, along with older haughty arrogance toward the white working-class, was safer.

The operating assumptions of multiculturalism, which is to say an ideology that suppresses the wishes of the natives to facilitate the doctrine, led directly to the Rape of Britain, in the same way that the various economic constraints and incentives led to Chernobyl. However, the charges leveled against the USSR can, at worst, be that the regime was indifferent to the lives of its citizens; as many would argue, indifference to the rapes is the best outcome for the British Establishment, given that anti-White dogma was so thoroughly welded into the societal superstructure.

When Sophie B wanders into a police station with blood on her pants and cigarette burns on her neck, the desk sergeant has to make a decision that could end his career and see him default on his mortgage. By the time the atrocities reach the highest level of government, the problem has become endemic, and thus, once again, the reality of the way we live becomes another problem to be managed. Either the regime admits that it is mendacious, incoherent, and (at the very least) has facilitated the mass rape of its own people, or it buries the truth under the convenient guise of “protecting community relations”.

In the end, the core of the problem is the very presence within our midst of people who are not actually ‘90s liberals but tribalistic conquering groups exploiting what was once called “Easy Meat”.

The regime is revealed to be thoroughly rotten and morally illegitimate, yet it persists, lurching on from one crisis to the next, leaching social capital and moral relevancy. How can the British Establishment’s lectures and haughty arrogance on the world stage be taken seriously when its competitors are keenly aware of the lurid realities of modern Britain?

The Catastrophe That Isn’t

Estimates on the scale of sexual assaults upon English girls by immigrant-descended men range widely. In 2019, The Independent newspaper reported “19,000 children identified” whereas Labour MP Sarah Champion claimed in 2015 that the figure could have already reached a million. The problem, of course, is that the logic of the multicultural project disincentivises reporting on the issue. What would, for a healthy nation and people, be regarded as a historical calamity, instead simmers away at a subterranean level, boiling up occasionally and oozing into the public discussion before going cold and sterile once again. The lies that we must adhere to prevent it becoming wedged into the collective psychology of the people precisely because it is the nature of those people that is in the process of being abolished.

Recent calls, including mine, have been made for monuments or memorials to be erected as a form of collective remembrance and catharsis for what has occurred. Matthew Goodwin proposed a memorial outside of parliament that politicians would have to pass every day, thereby formalising the catastrophe in their minds and those of the nation. However, such moves would require atonement and self-reflection from those responsible for the atrocities to begin with — it would be a rejection and negation of their entire worldview and political careers. Either that or it would require an entirely new governing class.

As the cries for blood and mass deportations ring out once more on social media, it is perhaps time to consider the longer-term impacts of the rape gang phenomenon within the context of British identity. Truth be told, a memorialising of this disaster will require a remembrance of those who suffered, those who ended the current misery, and a wholesale re-education program for the masses of ideologues and regime toadies who made it possible, on a scale of the post-war de-Nazification process that took place in Germany. Only this time, an appreciation of kin will replace out-group reverence, loyalty will replace treason, and there will be an acceptance of wrong done to the innocent in the name of fraudulent and stupid ideals.