'Rotherham': triumph of the Leviathan

Economics, Politics, Philosophy, History and Culture
Forum rules
Always add something of value to the discussion and have fun. Mind your language, no porn, no libel, no trolling and no personal attacks.

Please note, views expressed on the forum do not necessarily represent the views of Mises UK.
Post Reply
User avatar
Tom Rogers
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2018 5:55 pm
Location: The Atheistic Pagan Avatars' Own County
Contact:

'Rotherham': triumph of the Leviathan

Post by Tom Rogers » Sun May 13, 2018 1:37 pm

I think both the Left and the far-Right are wrong about 'Rotherham'. But both sides are in denial about different things. The Left are in denial about the tribal and territorial imperatives of the human condition that conflict with multi-culturalism and make diversity difficult, if not impossible, to sustain. Anybody who questions their axioms, even if the challenge is put in an educated, articulate and moderate way, is branded a 'racist' and even socially-excluded. The far-Right are in denial about equally essential facets of Man's animal-sexuality. Anybody who puts to them the simple and obvious point that young underage women are often sexually experienced and should be made accountable, at least to some degree, for their own choices is branded a 'paedophile' or worse.

In sum, both political camps rest on ultra-statist contentions based on the state (or some other surrogate body) as parent and behavioural moderator for everyone. Society under the influence of these ideas has regressed into a mixture of apathy and moral dependency, and I would argue that the 'Rotherham' phenomenon reflects how admittedly harsh but important foundational ideas of personal responsibility are being lost to society-at-large.

I apostrophise Rotherham because I regard it as a media-driven phenomenon. Rotherham is a place, 'Rotherham' is a political construct. In reality, we do not know what really happened there, instead a constructed narrative has driven thinking among the intellectual and professional classes and activists and political people. In my anecdotal experience, ordinary people often stand in sharp contrast to this and can hold much more nuanced and realistic opinions about the matter. This makes a change, for normally it is the Man on the Clapham Omnibus who is assumed to be ignorant, but this is one of those issues where the Man on the Clapham Omnibus has the requisite common-sense and experience and recognises that while behaviour contrary to criminal statutes should be punished, young women too have responsibilities, even if only to themselves.

I have yet to see any credible evidence that a significant number of forced rapes occurred in Rotherham the place. There will have been some, and rape is utterly vile whomever the victim is, male or female; but for the most part, the underage white girls of Rotherham were de facto consenting and went with these Pakistani Moslem men voluntarily, only complaining later when they realised what they had got themselves into. This is reflected in the 'social work' jargon that is used in the relevant reports and coverage, in academic literature, and even in the objective arena of the law courts, and I believe this sociologese is intentionally designed to smooth other complex factual situations. It is claimed that these girls were 'groomed', but what does that really mean? For most of us, we would simply not be here if our fathers had not had the courage to 'groom' our mothers. What exactly is the agenda here? Is it really safety? And also, why should the state and local authorities be concerned with safety at all? Aren't we supposed to be a free society in which people learn from their own mistakes?

For socio-evolutionary reasons, women mature earlier than men. Men are more complex and intelligent animals because we are 'designed' (to put it clumsily) to hunt and kill, etc., whereas a woman is simply an emblastioned womb. In strict evolutionary terms, hominins selected for early female maturation in order to maximise the odds of group survival. Thus, a girl becomes a woman in the biological sense at a relatively early age: 13 or 14, and will develop sexual knowledge and social acuity at roughly that same age. Most teenage girls know more about sex than the average man in his early 20s, and there's also the odd thing we're all familiar with where a young women of maybe 16 or 17 who has carried a baby to term seems more mature than most adult men. Women bear considerable burdens, and with this must naturally come a degree of responsibility. Traditional societies are organised in a way that reflects this. Chastity and virginity among women is not something to be mocked: it is a deadly serious matter. When and with whom a woman has sex is of great significance, whereas when and with whom (indeed whether) a man has sex is of little or no significance to anybody.

Yet women who choose to sleep around demand that the state and local authorities come to their aid. They do not acknowledge that they failed utterly in their first and most important duty, which is to guard their own chastity and look after their own welfare. I must ask: where is the talk about personal responsibility, about choices and consequences? What message is being sent to other young girls and women if those who make poor choices are styled as victims? Why defend bad parents who have failed in their duties to their own children?

The far-Right claim a cover-up took place, but that is not true. Pakistani Moslem men have been prosecuted under the relevant statutes for many years prior to the Jay Report. There has been no cover-up, only media scandalisation and scapegoating, together with the inevitable and predicable calls for more state power and official interference in parenting and children, more harsh and repressive laws and police practices to regulate male sexuality and more not less parenting by the state in place of individual autonomy. 'Rotherham' is a triumph of the Leviathan, in which individual will is embodied in the state will, in this case backed-up by moral hysteria and a weird sort of mob-slave rule.

What should be the right political response to 'Rotherham'? I think it would be two-pronged. On the one hand, it must be stated clearly and emphatically that 'Rotherham' is a consequence of diversity, that mass immigration must end, and that all non-European heritage people must gradually leave this country, perhaps over several decades as part of a gradual and humane scheme of deportation, with those who commit serious offences (including those committed by Pakistani Moslem men in Rotherham and other places) subject to immediate deportation rather than prison. On the other hand, I think it should be stated equally clearly and emphatically that 'Rotherham' is also a consequence of irresponsibility on the part of most of the young women involved and their parents. If you wish to practice loose sexual morals, then you must take the consequences and not expect sympathy from those who would rather start families. Sexual licence is not freedom. Laissez-faire parenting does not inculcate freedom in the next generation. Liberty is complicated: freedom requires discipline because only the independent can be free.

User avatar
FvS
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2018 3:03 am

Re: 'Rotherham': triumph of the Leviathan

Post by FvS » Thu May 17, 2018 5:19 am

What should be the right political response to 'Rotherham'? I think it would be two-pronged. On the one hand, it must be stated clearly and emphatically that 'Rotherham' is a consequence of diversity, that mass immigration must end, and that all non-European heritage people must gradually leave this country, perhaps over several decades as part of a gradual and humane scheme of deportation, with those who commit serious offences (including those committed by Pakistani Moslem men in Rotherham and other places) subject to immediate deportation rather than prison. On the other hand, I think it should be stated equally clearly and emphatically that 'Rotherham' is also a consequence of irresponsibility on the part of most of the young women involved and their parents. If you wish to practice loose sexual morals, then you must take the consequences and not expect sympathy from those who would rather start families. Sexual licence is not freedom. Laissez-faire parenting does not inculcate freedom in the next generation. Liberty is complicated: freedom requires discipline because only the independent can be free.
Victim blaming!!! But seriously, it's always complicated when talking about age of consent because the degree of rationality can vary from person to person. Also, there were definitely serious crimes perpetrated on innocent victims who weren't just horny teenagers getting in over their heads. What percentage of the victims fit that description? I don't know. However, by and large, I agree with your conclusion.
"Most whites do not have a racial identity, but they would do well to understand what race means for others. They should also ponder the consequences of being the only group for whom such an identity is forbidden and who are permitted no aspirations as a group." - Jared Taylor

User avatar
Tom Rogers
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2018 5:55 pm
Location: The Atheistic Pagan Avatars' Own County
Contact:

Re: 'Rotherham': triumph of the Leviathan

Post by Tom Rogers » Thu May 17, 2018 1:10 pm

FvS wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 5:19 am
Victim blaming!!!
Victim-blaming isn't always misplaced, though I prefer to call it holding people accountable for their own actions. If I leave my bicycle outside unlocked and it's stolen, it would not be inappropriate to put some of the blame on me for carelessness. If a woman dresses and acts like a slut and then gets herself into a situation where she is raped or sexually-assaulted, some of the blame has to fall on her for putting herself in that situation. Victims must have moral agency. That's not to condone the actions of the criminal, of course.
FvS wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 5:19 am
But seriously, it's always complicated when talking about age of consent because the degree of rationality can vary from person to person.
I'm not sure 'rationality' comes into it, as the law can't really judge that other than in obvious cases of incapacity. Once a woman becomes biologically capable of having children, then she is mature, and the law in most jurisdictions roughly reflects this by putting the age of consent somewhere between 14 and 18 - in other words adding two or three years from the onset of puberty to allow for rudimentary social development. In England, it is 16, or 18 in situations involving a professional or fiduciary relationship. Thus, the state has imposed arbitrary boundaries for consent, but these are just a minimum age standard, it's still up to individuals.
FvS wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 5:19 am
Also, there were definitely serious crimes perpetrated on innocent victims who weren't just horny teenagers getting in over their heads. What percentage of the victims fit that description? I don't know.
I have not seen any official evidence of forcible rape, and while I am pretty sure that there will have been such incidents, it will be a small minority of cases. Looking at the Jay Report, virtually all of these cases are young girls - who, mostly, are just under the age of consent - going out and willingly consorting with older men. They were not in over their heads. Some of these girls were also acting as pimps for the men to procure girls, mainly from a local care home. I'm not disagreeing that the law needs to deal with these men on the basis that their behaviour is inappropriate, but I do object strongly to any situation - as here - where women (and young women) are given a 'free pass' on their own responsibilities, which is underpinned by vestigial notions that women are weaker than men. Personally, I don't believe women are equal to men. I also don't accept the argument of 'difference' feminists, normally associated with conservative and equity feminists, that goes something like- 'men and women are not inequal, just different'. I think equality of any sort is a chimera. But it's not up to me. If society as a whole has decided that women are equal to men, on whatever basis that is decided, then women must meet comparable behavioural standards that reflect equal civil and social rights. No more free passes. No more 'babes in the wood' arguments. If you're a 14 year old girl and you want to slut around, then you can take the consequences. And if it ends badly for you, well, that's a good life lesson for you. You know what to do next time, don't you.

User avatar
FvS
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2018 3:03 am

Re: 'Rotherham': triumph of the Leviathan

Post by FvS » Sat May 19, 2018 8:01 pm

Isn't it commonly believed that the brains of younger teenagers aren't as developed compared to an older teens? Theoretically, this is why teens under 16-18 are not thought to be as responsible for their actions, and why they aren't legally allowed to do certain things. I'm not saying that, in general, people of all ages shouldn't exercise more prudence in their choices, just that maybe young teenagers shouldn't be held to the same standards as adults.
"Most whites do not have a racial identity, but they would do well to understand what race means for others. They should also ponder the consequences of being the only group for whom such an identity is forbidden and who are permitted no aspirations as a group." - Jared Taylor

User avatar
Tom Rogers
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2018 5:55 pm
Location: The Atheistic Pagan Avatars' Own County
Contact:

Re: 'Rotherham': triumph of the Leviathan

Post by Tom Rogers » Sun May 20, 2018 1:50 pm

FvS wrote:
Sat May 19, 2018 8:01 pm
Isn't it commonly believed that the brains of younger teenagers aren't as developed compared to an older teens? Theoretically, this is why teens under 16-18 are not thought to be as responsible for their actions, and why they aren't legally allowed to do certain things. I'm not saying that, in general, people of all ages shouldn't exercise more prudence in their choices, just that maybe young teenagers shouldn't be held to the same standards as adults.
In England, the law does hold children aged between 10 and 17 fully responsible for criminal acts. It works a bit different in regard to civil matters, in that civil liability rests on the parent or guardian until the child reaches 16 or 18, depending on the cause of action.

I think it's widely recognised that children can be held responsible for what they do, indeed this is considered a necessity to ensure that the appropriate message is imparted about what is and is not acceptable. Of course, allowances must be made for age and relative immaturity, but 14 year old girls know right from wrong and know what the consequences are in going with strange men in cars, something they did entirely voluntarily. They were not being dragged to these cars or held at gun point. That said, it is accepted that the primary responsible parties are the men who broke statutory laws by having sex with women who are deemed by law to be children and are under 16.

User avatar
FvS
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2018 3:03 am

Re: 'Rotherham': triumph of the Leviathan

Post by FvS » Sun May 20, 2018 10:36 pm

Found this study that I thought was interesting.

The Adolescent Brain
Reyna and Farley (2006) have reconciled the second myth by showing that adolescents are able to reason and understand risks of behaviors in which they engage and do not consider themselves invincible. Prior research has also shown that adolescents knowingly engage in risky behavior, and this is often due to influences of feelings, emotions, and peers (Gardener & Steinberg 2005; Steinberg 2004, 2005). The observation that adolescents know that they are engaging in risky behavior is not supported by the sole explanation of a less developed prefrontal cortex. In this context, our model suggests that the adolescent is capable of making rational decisions, but in emotionally charged situations the more mature limbic system will win over the prefrontal control system.

When faced with an immediate personal decision, adolescents will rely less on intellectual capabilities and more on feelings. Nevertheless, when reasoning about a hypothetical, moral dilemma, the adolescent will rely more on logical information (Steinberg 2005). In other words, when a poor decision is made in the heat of the moment, the adolescent may know better, but the salience of the emotional context biases his or her behavior in opposite direction of the optimal action. This work coincides with studies of social cognition showing that adolescents make more rational decisions about hypothetical scenarios versus real-life situations (Sobesky 1983). The environmental context and emotional significance of the decision greatly influence the adolescent (Steinberg 2005).

Our findings and model have significant implications for heated debates on public policy and the treatment of minors in our judicial system. Adolescents show adult levels of intellectual capability earlier than they show evidence of adult levels of impulse control (Reyna & Farley 2006). As such, adolescents may be capable of making informed choices about their future (e.g., terminating a pregnancy) but do not yet have full capacity to override impulses in emotionally charged situations that require decisions in the heat of the moment. Unfortunately, judges, politicians, advocates, and journalists are biased toward drawing a single line between adolescence and adulthood for different purposes under the law that is at odds with developmental cognitive neuroscience (Steinberg et al. in press). Our neurodevelopmental model of adolescence will hopefully help to make strides in moving this single line to multiple lines that consider developmental changes across both context (emotionally charged or not) and time (in the moment or in the future).
"Most whites do not have a racial identity, but they would do well to understand what race means for others. They should also ponder the consequences of being the only group for whom such an identity is forbidden and who are permitted no aspirations as a group." - Jared Taylor

Post Reply