Why Will There Be No Inquiry Into the Pakistani Rape Gangs? Because The Left Despises the Working Class

It’s no exaggeration to say that the Pakistani Grooming Scandal is probably the worst crime committed against the English people on their own soil at the hands of foreigners since the Harrying of the North in winter 1069 to 1070. In that winter, William the Conqueror brutally subjugated the north of England. Over the last 30 years, a new conquering force has attacked the rebellious northlands: Many thousands of vulnerable, working-class English girls were groomed with alcohol and drugs and then raped by numerous Pakistani men, passed around as though they were sweets.

The horrific details – some of the girls were as young as 9, air pumps were used to widen their anuses, baseball bats were inserted into their vaginas, a girl was killed and sold to the community as kebab meat – only underscore the fact that this was a war crime as old as war itself: Men from another tribe invade and take the females as war booty, raping them to humiliate the males of the defeated tribe, to taunt them about their failure to defend their women.

But the metaphor doesn’t work. These men were invited into England by the Labour Party, once the party of the working class, founded in part on the Trade Union Movement and Nonconformist churches that were popular among workers. These horrors took place in overwhelmingly Labour-voting areas – working-class, ex-industrial towns such as Rotherham and Rochdale, with no “white privilege” there – and were covered up, ignored, or downplayed by the authorities, including Labour-voting social workers, partly to protect the Pakistanis and the sacred dogma of “multiculturalism”. Elon Musk finally forced the country to confront what had happened, yet Labour minister Jess Phillips announced this week that there would be no public enquiry into the worst crime committed against the English people on their own soil since the eleventh century.

The reason the Labour government doesn’t want an enquiry is obvious. It will reveal, in shameful detail, the extent to which Labour Party members were involved in turning a blind eye to, covering up, and enabling the Pakistani rape gangs. It will place in sharp relief something we all know deep down: the Labour Party despises the white working class. In 2014, Labour Shadow Minister Emily Thornberry tweeted a picture of a council house in Rochester with an English flag hanging from it and a tradesman’s white van parked in front. She didn’t comment, nor did she need to. It was her snobbish way of expressing contempt for the English working class, and it was so obvious that she was forced to resign. Why does the left hate the English working class so much?

Part of the reason is that a divide that once existed on the left has collapsed. Even in the 1980s, Labour parliamentarians included actual working-class people, almost always trade unionists, as well as left-wing middle-class people associated with the Fabian Society. Due in part to the egalitarian policies Labour pushed for after the war, such as free university education and grammar schools, clever working-class children were able to move into the middle class.

Intelligence is about 80% genetic, so this period of social mobility could only be temporary. It produced a series of prime ministers from working- or lower-middle-class backgrounds – Wilson, Heath, Callaghan, Thatcher, Major – but then we returned to prime ministers who were mostly privately educated or at least from upper-middle-class backgrounds. Since intelligence predicts political participation, the remaining working class essentially stopped being involved in the Labour Party. Moreover, low intelligence is associated with disliking change and being highly instinctive, with instincts including ethnocentrism. Accordingly, the remaining working class, regardless of their social behaviour, were not interested in the joys of diversity, not least because it directly undermined their wages.

So, all that remained were middle-class leftists, non-working-class people who would have us believe they are so kind and motivated by fairness that they want to help the working class. Except they don’t. The working class is a means to an end for such people.

In his book Swearing in English, linguistics scholar Anthony McEnery explores the origins of the middle class. Even in the sixteenth century, their position in society was clear. Deep down, they aspired to be upper class and resented that they were not. They feared falling into the working class and being perceived as part of it.

They dealt with this through virtue- and purity-signalling. They asserted they were more moral than the degenerate working class or the decadent upper class. They were more religious, for example, and thus were the engines of Lollardy and Protestantism. Indeed, every moral panic you can think of – from Puritanism to Black Lives Matter – has ultimately been middle-class people vying for status, trying to seem more moral than others. Which social class, for example, do you think uses the word “fuck” the least?

Within this inherently insecure class, some are more insecure than others. In a right-wing society, they purity-signal to appear more moral than everyone else. In a left-wing one, they virtue-signal. As I explore in my book Woke Eugenics, numerous convergent studies on the psychology of leftists show they are high in mental instability, meaning deep down they hate themselves. They fear others, are socially anxious, and are jealous and resentful. As a result, they are high in Machiavellianism; they want power and see people as merely a means to that end. They are narcissistic, creating a perfect, morally superior false self, and they crave adoration, which virtue-signalling can achieve. They are anti-tradition because they associate tradition with a power they feel they lack and to which they feel entitled. They fear a fair fight, so they vie for status covertly through virtue-signalling. And they identify with groups genetically distant from themselves – another family, class, or race – as this allows them to collaborate with outsiders to gain power over their own in-group, their own class.

A good example is Tony Benn, formerly Anthony Wedgwood-Benn, Viscount Stansgate, who renounced his hereditary peerage. He belonged to a generation in which people like him gained power over their own class by collaborating with the English working class. He was very rich, espoused redistribution, yet left his wealth to his own family. But since competitive virtue-signalling is required, once England began admitting non-white people – who were “marginalised” compared to long-settled white people – it became more virtuous to identify with them than with the white working class. The latter were genetically closer to the self and less easy to romanticise, as most of their intelligent members had by then been absorbed into the middle class.

As such, the working class induced disgust in the left, and insofar as they were conservative, the working class became enemies of narcissistic people who felt inherently entitled to power. The working class had the temerity to question those who felt entitled to be worshipped. Foreigners, of course, would vote for the left because the left would give them other people’s money, and the middle-class left, being congenital traitors, would promote their interests and receive power and narcissistic supply in return. Foreigners would also vote for the left because they are anti-nationalistic, and nationalism is the last thing you want if you’re a foreigner. From this, a new leftism emerged wherein morality was associated with being pro-multiculturalism and, through competitive virtue-signalling, eventually anti-white.

Of course, the left knew their own hypocrisy: the working-class English confronted them with the fact that they don’t really care about the poor or anyone else. These poor people’s lives have worsened due to multiculturalism. The left’s policies – such as turning natural and adaptive ethnocentrism into the worst possible heresy and attacking traditional moral values that condemn promiscuity and pre-marital sex – led to this war crime.

The resulting cognitive dissonance took several forms: dehumanising the victim class as scum, blaming the victims for being promiscuous even though they were under-age, and covering up what happened because their sense of moral superiority stems from being highly pro-multiculturalism. If that’s undermined, so is the justification for their power and their narcissistic supply. It all collapses.

This is why Labour does not want an enquiry into this war crime. They despise the English working class. They’d frankly rather they all just died.

---

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:

GIRL COMMUNISM: Did the Woke Deep State Hack the Journalist who Exposed the Hidden Details of the Southport Massacre?