What the Bangladesh Liberation War can teach us about England's Pakistani Rape Gangs
Elon Musk is a tenacious kind of autistic. Continually pressuring and goading Britain’s anti-British government over Pakistani rape gangs in impoverished English towns, he has achieved some fascinating results. He has needled Two Tier Keir into publicly losing his temper yet again (as much as such a deeply repressed person can), leading Queer Keir to slur opponents as “far right.” Yet again, the Granny Harmer has displayed his dictatorial tendencies in exclaiming that he won’t “tolerate” “debate based on lies” (meaning the unpalatable truth) or “politicians jumping on a bandwagon,” not unlike the man who knelt for a violent African-American criminal during the worst hysteria in decades and had his uber-conformism photographed.
Elon has forced emotional discussion of Pakistani Paedophile Packs in parliament and, having voted against a National Inquiry into them, a shocked Labour Party, in response to a visceral public reaction, is now saving face by establishing a series of local inquiries. But, in a sense, there has already been the most in-depth inquiry into these issues that you could possibly wish for. It took place in 2009 and it was called “The War Crimes Fact Finding Committee of Bangladesh.” What happened in Bangladesh in 1971 was, in essence, Rotherham and Rochdale on a massive scale and minus the actual grooming. It highlighted a particular dimension – sadly, an evolutionarily adaptive dimension – of fundamentalist Islam.
Based on what took place in “East Pakistan” in 1971, anybody could’ve predicted that Rotherham and Rochdale would occur. English people enjoy nothing more than going to an Indian restaurant for a spicy curry and absurdly gaseous lager. The majority of these “Indian” restaurants are run by Bangladeshis, who are overwhelmingly Muslim but often of a more liberal kind than is found in Pakistan, not least because Pakistan is considerably more influenced by the Arab world and because between 1977 and 1988, under its dictator General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq (1924-1988), Pakistan became a fundamentalist Islamic state. When I tweeted to ask why we weren’t discussing what took place in East Pakistan in 1971, some wag responded: “Because no one gives a fuck. We care about Britain.” To this, someone else replied: “You think the events of the Pakistani civil war are of no account to Britain? Nothing we can learn from? Nothing we should have been warned about?” They certainly tell us something crucial about fundamentalist Islam.
With the partition of India in 1947, Muslim Pakistan was created in contrast to overwhelmingly Hindu India, resulting in terrible massacres as Hindus and Sikhs fled what was to become Pakistan and Muslims abandoned what was to become India. Pakistan was composed of various Indian states or parts of states. Pakistan, indeed, is a kind of acronym: Punjab, Afghan (meaning the Northwest frontier around the Khyber Pass), Kashmir, Indus, Sind, and Balochistan. Tellingly, the other component of the original Pakistan, East Bengal – separated from Pakistan by India – is not included in the acronym. But Bengal, like the Punjab, was divided between the two countries.
Bengal was distinct from contiguous Pakistan in a number of respects. Many Hindus remained in East Bengal, meaning that there was considerable Hindu influence there even after partition. Even now, Bangladesh is 8% Hindu. Pakistan was a series of ethnic groups, with the Balochis, who are also found in Afghanistan and Iran, fighting for independence to this day. East Bengal was one ethnic group, albeit one divided by religion. Pakistan was influenced by the fundamentalist Islamic tendencies of the Middle East. East Bengal practiced a far more liberal form of Islam.
The Punjabis, who dominated West Pakistan, discriminated against Bengalis in institutional appointments. This led to demands for autonomy from the heavily populated East Pakistan led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (1920-1975). East Pakistan had a larger population than all of West Pakistan combined. As a result, Rahman managed to win Pakistan’s 1970 General Election. The Western Pakistani military junta that was running the country refused to transfer power to Rahman, who was bound to introduce East Bengali autonomy and was, anyway, not Punjabi. The result, in March 1971, was a civil war in which East Pakistan fought for independence.
In this conflict, the fundamentalist Muslim West Pakistanis deliberately used rape as a weapon of war and, in so doing, simply engaged in a highly evolutionarily adaptive tactic, something I have explored in my book The Silent Rape Epidemic. Humans are evolved for polygamous mating systems in which high-status males control most of the females because females sexually select for status as the achievement of status implies adaptive genes. This is why, among the Bushmen of Kalahari, only around 40% of males pass on their genes. The lower status males, therefore, are effectively left in a situation where they can only breed via rape, and rape is easier to achieve if it is inflicted as part of a gang. They can find an unprotected female from their own tribe and rape her or they can fight for their tribe, kill the men in the other tribe, take the females as war booty, and rape them that way. This is important because it gives the “incels” of a tribe a motivation to fight for the tribe; it limits the possibility of internal rebellion by low-status males.
The result is an association, in males, between sex and violence. In a highly unstable ecology where only the aggressive survive, the only way a female can truly know that a male is genetically fit is if he can overpower her; hence, around 65% of white, female students admit to having rape fantasies. The result is that males are more sexually aroused by violent porn than by so-called vanilla porn. Obviously, the fact that one male has managed to rape a female means that others may recently have done so. This introduces sperm competition. Thus, men ejaculate more sperm in response to violent porn and also when a male is treating a woman violently in a video. They produce less sperm in response to violent but lesbian porn. Unsurprisingly, therefore, women are more likely to become pregnant via rape than via consensual sex: more sperm is produced, and the female’s immune system is being unconsciously told that this man’s offspring will be the ones that survive.
Taking women as war booty not only satisfies the low-status men, allowing the group to remain positively ethnocentric and cooperative (meaning it is more likely to dominate other groups), but it allows the group’s genetic diversity to expand. This may throw up useful but unlikely combinations, such as highly intelligent psychopaths who invent brilliant weapons. These women may have useful adaptations, such as greater resistance to local diseases, which is especially helpful if you occupy the defeated tribe’s territory. Hybrid vigor – greater fitness due to out-breeding and, thus, lower double doses of harmful mutations – may be found in the offspring, meaning the rapists will have more descendants. Such actions may even be said to be a stepping stone towards building a more ethnocentric people, as only the cooperative war booty females will avoid being killed.
In addition, mass rape will undermine any unity in the opposite tribe. Females who are raped but not taken captive may be shunned by their families, leading to conflict. The males will feel utterly humiliated that they haven’t been able to protect their females and may become despondent or turn on each other.
As such, we shouldn’t be shocked that, as Islam was expanding, the Prophet Mohammed asserted that his followers should “take any woman that your right arm can hold.” He is sanctifying something highly adaptive, and this is precisely what West Pakistani imams began doing in 1971. They issued fatwas stating that the East Pakistani women were war booty. The initial focus was on Hindu women, as they were infidels, and the Pakistani government blamed the Hindus for stirring up nationalist sentiment in East Bengal. However, the idea soon developed that East Bengali Muslims, being more liberal, were not truly Muslim, so they were essentially infidels as well.
Consequently, as many as 250,000 Bengali women were raped, often as sex slaves for Punjabi soldiers in concentration camps. In the wake of this, there were at least 170,000 abortions, 5,000 self-induced abortions, and, in 1972, the year in which Bangladesh achieved independence from Pakistan, around 30,000 babies were born as a consequence of these rapes. Many women committed suicide due to the shame of having been raped by the enemy. This was, in effect, Rotherham but without the grooming. Getting the girls addicted to drugs and alcohol was simply bypassed.
So, to be clear, the English people have a great deal to learn from the Bangladesh Liberation War. It was a warning with regard to what will happen if you let young, single, fundamentalist Muslim males into your territory. They are likely to practice Jihad, perceiving the locals as kaffirs, and they are likely to use rape as what it is: an extremely effective and adaptive weapon of war.
For more based-science analysis of society and politics, become a subscriber at JollyHeretic.com!
Did you miss the last Dutton’s Digest? Click below:
Didn't know very much about the partition, very interesting. Does seem a very different situation to what has happened in England tthough. It has always seemed to me that the Western cultural revolution such as miniskirts etc had something to do with it. By the way Ed, you said "less pernicious porn" but wrote "lesbian porn" in the text.