4,877 words

According to historians, the Rape of Nanking saw perhaps 20,000 victims. According to Rupert Lowe, the Rape of Britain saw perhaps 250,000. So, that makes the latter over ten times worse. Doesn’t it?

In actual fact, nobody knows precisely how many underage white (and also a minority of non-white) girls were gang-raped by mobs of Pakistani males and others of Muslim immigrant stock across Great Britain over the past few decades, beginning, it would seem, as far back as the 1950s: because it was all covered up. Exposing this simple fact further was the whole point of Rupert Lowe’s new Rape-Gang Inquiry in the first place. Still, the specific 250,000 figure is debatable and we shouldn’t allow it to become our own unquestionable sacred number like Judaism’s well-known six million here.

Holo Claims?

The Great White Hope Lowe, as regular Counter-Currents readers will know, is leader of the hard-Right Restore Britain party, and last week, after much prior build-up, he released his new Rape-Gang Inquiry Report, which featured the specific 250,000 number several times throughout, besides about 80 pages of testimony from just a few of the brutalized girls affected.

Having spent the last #MeToo decade crying hysterically that “All victims must be believed!”, Rupert’s multiculturalism-friendly critics could hardly base their inevitable prompt dismissal of the Inquiry upon openly saying they just didn’t believe the largely female victim testimonies Lowe had assembled to fill its pages. So, instead, they tried to focus upon its methodology, in particular disputing the stated 250,000 figure. Lowe did not arrive at this number himself, but took it from Lord Pearson of Rannoch, a politician in the House of Lords, who had extrapolated it from existing known cases himself, using an unfortunately somewhat arbitrary calculus, back in 2019. As Lord Pearson explained, making reference to the UK’s most notorious rape-gang center in the post-industrial town of Rotherham:

If you take the accepted figure of 1,400 victims in Rotherham alone and extend it across the country, you come to a much larger figure. Indeed, Rotherham’s MP, the courageous Sarah Champion, has put the figure at 1 million.

But, of course, not all British towns and cities are Rotherham: some are lucky enough not to have any Muslims living in them at all. In others, the problem is the reverse: there are plenty of Muslims, but not many kuffar white girls for them to abuse. Therefore, this precise figure is ultimately an educated guess. Some commentators, like Adam Wren of the Open Justice legal reform organization, therefore used it to dismiss near-enough Lowe’s entire Inquiry as a shoddy, sensationalist mess. Wren isn’t a Rape-Gang enabler himself, though: far from it. Admirably, he has previously campaigned and raised money to get the transcripts of many of the gang-rapists’ trials released to the public when they were otherwise unavailable for general perusal, something which helped expose the true horrors of what was really going on across Britain. He is also on record as saying whites are now second-class UK citizens, legally speaking. So, I think Wren’s own personal criticism on this specific point comes from a simple concern for statistical accuracy, not something more base.

But is too much being made of Lowe’s use of this number nonetheless? It is true that the Report does once carelessly call the 250,000 figure an “established” one (p.12), which I do think is a mistake upon Rupert’s behalf. But, elsewhere, (p.112) Lowe’s report more correctly says the following:

The 250,000 figure is not a precise count. No such count exists because the British state has failed to record it.

Yes, and we all know why, as well. My own opinion on the matter would be akin to the one articulated in the following tweet:

For me, 250,000 is just a convenient shorthand way of saying “a ton” as in tens or maybe even hundreds of thousands, over the past several decades, but increasingly even more from the post-Tony Blair 2000s onwards. Certainly, Lowe’s Report could have made this fact rather clearer, but I can’t help but feel that, by focusing on this number so very, very much following the document’s release, many worse-faith critics than Adam Wren were trying dishonestly to discredit the larger whole based upon one single smaller part of it.

That appears to have been the general public opinion here, too. When Yahoo’s bespoke “fact-checking website” went out of its way to try and rubbish the 250,000 number, the below-the-line comments in response were overwhelmingly of the following nature:

I do think it’s worth being accurate on this issue, myself. But I also think that, due to the nature of the crimes and their systematic state cover-up, being accurate is simply not possible here. I also think that about the absolute precise number of those killed by the Nazis during the Holocaust, though.

It is an interesting fact that, prior to his Report’s release, Rupert Lowe was accused of “antisemitism” after supposedly comparing the accumulated rape-gang crimes to that of the Holocaust. What he actually said was this, however, referencing the fact that the Left-wing UK Labour Party had been complicit in covering up the rape-gangs, because they were beholden to Muslim votes in many areas:

I don’t think anybody in this country can ever vote Labour again when they see in that report that Labour has put its own power and its own ambitions ahead of the interests of the most vulnerable white, working-class girls who have been abused. And it is still going on as we sit here tonight, and they have denied it. So they have denied something the equivalent of the Holocaust.

That may be slightly awkwardly phrased, but I take it what Rupert meant here was pretty obviously not that six million white girls had been killed by Muslims, paralleling the standard number of Jews estimated to have been killed by the Nazis. Rather, he was arguing that to basically deny the rape-gangs existed on any meaningful scale, or that they were inextricably linked to Islam, as some deliberately blind persons on the Left argued, would have been qualitatively the same as denying the existence of the Holocaust, and its inextricable link to Nazism. Creditably, Lowe refused to apologize, telling such willfully obtuse opponents they could “piss off.”

A few weeks later, once his Report had finally been released, Lowe could have gone much further and actively compared his antagonists with Holocaust Deniers themselves. We are often told by the likes of the ADL (and its new UK offshoot, Actively Defaming Lowe) that even querying the teeniest, tiniest detail of the Holocaust, such as disputing the holy six million number, is an act of hate—think five million died, and that this was still a terrible thing, but it’s better to know the mathematically accurate truth? Then you’re still a hateful Denier! Think seven million died, and that the six million number was actually an underestimate? Then, even though you are more of a Holocaust Exaggerator than a Holocaust Denier, you will still be condemned as being one of the latter by some ADL-alikes, because this counts as querying the standard narrative nonetheless!

Six million is clearly a somewhat symbolic number, being a nice, convenient, memorable round figure. So is 250,000. Why is one fine, and the other not? These are obvious double-standards at play, no surprise in the land of Two-Tier Keir. Come on, Deborah Lipstadt, sue these dishonest actors!

There is another way Lowe’s findings are being denied too, though: and that’s simply by not mentioning them. Rupert Lowe says that’s just what most major UK media outlets like the BBC have been doing:

Many mainstream media sources in the UK simply did not mention the Inquiry at all when it came out, and even Google was accused of suppressing it, with simple terms like “Restore Britain Rape Gang Report” placing direct links to the published document someway down the consequent list of search results, buried under negative reviews of it. Still, it didn’t matter. Within a mere few days of release, according to the man himself, around a million people had found Lowe’s posts about the Report and clicked through to have a look anyway—please don’t question that number, or someone might set the ADL on you.

Raping the Truth?

Some critics furthermore use Lowe’s Report to segue into an artificial dispute over whether the rape-gangs really had anything much to do with Islam at all, the religion supposedly being a mere contributory factor at work here, not the overwhelming main one. Here is the usually sensible Adam Wren, of Open Justice, once more, only here being a little less sensible:

Lowe’s Report is right to mention Islam as a factor in these crimes, but in doing so it risks flattening a more complex set of drivers around clan culture and ethnicity … The focus on Islam is a culture-war framing that masks the real culprit of clan mentality … What produced these gangs in English towns was not religious ideology but geography and kinship: dense, intermarried communities with their own authority structures, enough accumulated local power to capture institutions, and a strong instinct to close ranks against outside scrutiny. The presence of Islam in the abuse supplies the social glue and vocabulary rather than the motive … By framing this as a civilizational conflict, the new report mistakes the nature of what it is describing, making it harder to understand and harder to prevent.

Then why is it, by and large, overwhelmingly Muslims in Britain who have been engaging in such organized acts of crime? According to analysis of court records reproduced in Lowe’s Report, 87 percent of prosecuted perpetrators have definitely Muslim names (unless some Jews or Buddhists have randomly been calling their kids “Muhammad” or “Jihad”), and some scholars think this could be raised even further to about 95%. In a country where “only” [sic] 6.5% of the population is currently Muslim, I think those numbers must be significant. (pp.7, 106-7, 113-14)

Furthermore, consider how strongly the rise in reported cases of rape in general have risen across England and Wales since 1997, the year when Tony Blair and his New Labour cabal came to power and threw open the floodgates fully to mass immigration. In 2000, there were around 8,000 rapes. By 2025, there were around 70,000. That’s 3.5 Nankings per annum now, but as Lowe has himself observed, these days the rapists responsible probably aren’t Japanese anymore. (p.114-15)

Testimony, both provided directly to Lowe’s own Report, and culled by him from other, previous investigations, reveals repeated explicit reference to the religious motivations of the crimes. Dr Ella Hill, a survivor of the Rotherham rape-gangs, attested that her Muslim tormentors specifically justified their treatment of her by saying she was only a mere Christian, and therefore “a white cunt,” whereas they were her ethnically and religiously superior brown Muslim overlords. (pp.108-9) Here’s how she described her Blairite virgin sacrifice upon the altar of Islam:

I was told that I must respect their religion … I was told that to show them respect, I mustn’t eat pork. I was told that Muslim girls are good and pure, and stay virgins until marriage, but all white girls are slags, and they all sleep with hundreds of people. I was told white girls are trash. They are all whores. They are lower than shit under your shoe. They don’t obey Allah, so they deserve to be punished. They don’t dress modestly … White girls show the curves of their body, so they are asking for it. They should be raped as punishment for not obeying Allah … They believed they had a position of religious moral superiority over ‘non-believers’. They believed it was their duty to punish us, as they believed that doing so made them good Muslims. This is what they were taught by their mothers. They were taught that witches in Pakistan are blonde, so blondes are more evil, and they deserve worse punishment. I was told that in Islam, if a girl or woman looks at a man who isn’t her brother, father or her husband, then that means she wants to have sex with him. So I was told to look at the floor … So when I did look at a waiter in a restaurant, I was then taken away to be gang-raped as ‘punishment’. … I was told that if you don’t scream when you’re raped, then you’re consenting to the rape, so you should be stoned to death. I was told that Muslim girls know this because the Koran says that Aisha’s silence was her consent to the marriage to Muhammad. So Muslim girls know to scream, but white girls don’t, so that’s their fault then, because they’re not Muslim. When I did wear a headscarf to try to protect myself from being raped, I was told to get it off, and they raped me again … All of the sexual abuse that I experienced was linked to spiritual abuse or religious abuse. Religious scriptures were used as tools of control to force me to conform to their will … Every time they quoted scripture it was very hard to argue with; to them it was like I was arguing with God. To me it was actually like I was arguing with the Devil. They used their so-called ‘religious moral authority’ to do the most horrific, immoral acts imaginable. (pp.109-110)

Does such testimony really square with the exculpatory notion that “Islam was just one of many contributory factors at work here?” Here is another Inquiry testimony, from a girl called “Jen”:

At the age of 17, Jen was introduced to a gang of Iraqi Kurdish Muslim men … The gang members – all of whom were illegal migrants – trafficked Jen to numerous towns and cities across the Midlands where she was raped by multiple men at what were described as ‘parties’. On one occasion, she was anally raped in a park by one of the gang-members. She was taken on drug runs and witnessed the slaughtering of a lamb in the bathroom of a house. She describes ‘a closed and intimidating social world governed by fear, loyalty, and silence,’ in which racially supremacist attitudes were openly and regularly expressed. White British people were described as ‘white trash’, and white girls as ‘English pig‑dogs’. Perpetrators insisted that children ‘choose’ exploitation, and Britain and its institutions were [correctly!] described as ‘soft’ and ‘easy’ to exploit. They boasted of receiving ‘free money’ from the British state, and on multiple occasions Jen was forced to fill in asylum benefit applications on their behalf. (pp.83-4)

You could say that sounds somewhat clannish and criminal in its nature besides being explicitly religious, but Jen’s own interpretation receives its own special graphic box-out in the Inquiry (p.86):

Plus, after being forcibly impregnated by an Iraqi “refugee” (who used to subsequently fly back home to Iraq on holiday, to handle AK-47s for recreational purposes), Jen said that:

During pregnancy the threats intensified. Jen was told she had no right to leave or make decisions about her child because to do so would be anti-Islamic. Her behavior was tightly controlled, including an instruction not to eat pork as the father believed it would make the baby gay. (p.84)

Gay bacon-babies: you just can’t get more comically, stereotypically Muslim than that! Here’s another telling graphic from the report which is rather difficult to dismiss in this respect (p.58):

In any case, if we are talking about things like imported Pakistani clan-culture, Lowe’s Report does mention this, in a specific separate section, but does so the right way around: i.e., by saying it was the clannishness which contributed to the main reason for the abuse, which was the frequent automatic hatred many Muslims have for non-Muslims, and for non-Muslim women in particular. Further, the Report also notes how many Sikhs in Britain have still kept their own imported clan-culture too, as have many other non-white immigrant groups, but they don’t generally abuse it to gang-rape white girls. Instead, they use it to protect themselves from their own daughters being gang-raped by Muslims, by forming up in tribal Sikh mobs to fight their aggressors off. Tragically, notes the Inquiry, the native deracinated and atomized white British no longer have such self-protecting clannish ethnic self-consciousness available to them, making their own offspring uniquely open to the predations of Mohammedans. (pp.132-3)

When such a social imbalance collides head-on with the terrifying institutional anti-whiteness of the UK Police Force, it seems the only way the cops are prepared to intervene is when the white girl happens by chance to be defended by members of another ethnic clan. One witness told Lowe’s Inquiry that, whenever she reported abuse by Muslims to police, they simply ignored her. But, this child having some Asian friends (I presume non-Muslims, like Sikhs or Hindus), whenever they phoned the police to report what was happening to the very same girl, officers turned up and treated her problems seriously for once. Why? Because otherwise, the other ethnic clans who were helping her out here would have immediately closed ranks and complained of police “institutionalized racism” being at work against them. (p.56) There might just be a lesson here, for how white people should begin conducting their own future interactions with DEI-corrupted officialdom in the nightmare multicultural society we have all now awoken trapped inside.

False Witness?

Another reproach voiced over Rupert’s Report is that it is over-reliant upon witness testimony from alleged victims. Of 219 pages, about 80 are taken up with transcripts and summaries of distressed adult females—and the occasional distressed adult male—recounting what they say happened during their ruined youths. Hence, the Report can easily be dismissed as being excessively “anecdotal” in nature.

Yet this structure is somewhat inevitable. Being crowd-funded and self-initiated, Lowe’s Inquiry, even though conducted upon the Parliamentary Estate, had no official status, and thus no statutory powers to compel attendance from anyone at all. No doubt Rupert would have liked to ask London Mayor Sadiq Khan—whom the Report names as allegedly helping cover up mass child-abuse in England’s capital for the direct clannish benefit of his Pakistani co-ethnic voters (pp.15-16)—to ride in on his camel and be grilled, but he would presumably just have said “no” in Urdu. So, they were reliant upon who actually wanted to turn up and talk about all this, which in practice meant a few brave whistleblowers, but mainly the victims themselves.

Narratively, these stories are very compelling. Consider the reported experience of “Fiona” (all participants are given pseudonyms) who, aged fourteen, was raped with a knife by a man known as “Rambo”—and when I say “raped with a knife,” I mean literally. Entering the UK illegally hidden in a lorry, he had previously been castrated in Pakistan for child abuse, so was physically unable to do such things anymore. Therefore, if I read the Report’s uncharacteristically coy phrasing upon this matter correctly, he compensated for this by sticking large, Rambo-style knives directly inside his victims’ vaginas instead. (p.31)

Similarly gruesome tales appear over and over again in the pages of the Report. So lurid are they, that my immediate thought was to recall the infamous Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA) panic which struck America and Britain in the 1980s and 1990s, when extreme Evangelical Christian social-workers, police, and others, persecuted perfectly innocent adults on nothing more than the exceedingly dubious testimonies of children whom the excessively religious-minded adults just wanted to believe were being gang-raped and abused by evil Satanists on an implausibly colossal scale. Some skeptics will ask, is Rupert Lowe not doing precisely the same thing here, but with innocent Muslims now standing in for fictional Satanists as the latest folk-devils du jour?

I can think of a few objections to this potential critique. Firstly, there is the fact that, during the SRA panic, several literally physically impossible accusations were made, such as that children were raped in hot-air balloons or in outer-space, that celebrities or outright fictional figures like Chuck Norris, Batman, and Mickey Mouse were amongst the rapists, that supernatural beings like ghosts, vampires, demons, and witches were involved, or that abusers kept large swimming pools full of sharks in their vans and fed babies to them whilst out on the road to pass the time. There’s nothing paranormal or outright insane like any of that in Lowe’s Report. Everything it mentions is at least physically possible, even if some of it may sound a bit unlikely to some ears.

Secondly, what Lowe describes fits in with a genuine, proven, pre-existing pattern. Prior to the SRA scare erupting, there were no real known instances of cabals of Satanists raping and sacrificing infants en masse before being successfully prosecuted for it, just broad historical parallel fake legends of the past, like those from medieval witch-trials. With Muslim rape-gangs, the supporting context is quite different. Unlike made-up Satanic baby-killing covens, we do know, absolutely for sure, that UK-based Muslim rape-gangs existed, and continue to exist. There have been any number of convictions of several hundreds, if not thousands, of known, named offenders, and, when it comes to the kinds of things they got up to, some are not a million miles away from the reported antics of deviants like Paki Rambo. Here’s a judge’s summing up  during sentencing (uncovered by Adam Wren of Open Justice, funnily enough) of what one rape-gang member did:

You, Mohammed Karrar, prepared [the victim] for gang anal rape by using a pump to expand her anal passage. You subjected her to a gang-rape by five or six men. At one point she had four men inside her. A red ball was placed in her mouth to keep her quiet.

That’s not invented, it actually happened. In general, most of the testimonies given to Lowe’s Inquiry fit in with the broad pattern of what is already known to have gone on elsewhere, and seem fairly plausible, considered in this context. Unfortunately, a major flaw of the Report is that it gives no substantial indication of what was done to determine whether each separate testimony was or was not actually genuine. If Lowe and his panel saw evidential photographs, electronic messages, medical and police reports, etc, they don’t reproduce any anonymized reprints or descriptions of such, leaving the casual reader to assume they just took complainants’ word for it all purely on trust, like a politically inverted mirror-image of #MeToo. Possibly Lowe & Co assessed and investigated each case very carefully, but if so they could and should have given more details in this respect, just to forestall any objections.

Shorn of such evidential proof, one or two of the most sensational testimonies stand out as being likely to be cited by critics as sounding especially dubious. One girl, “Felicity”, speaks of seeing white sex-slave girls being kept in dog-cages, burned alive and shot in the face, besides babies having cigarettes stubbed out on them, and of meeting a man who boasts of wanting to becoming the next Fred West, a notorious UK serial-killer, who told Felicity he wanted to find a new Rose (Fred’s equally murderous wife) to kidnap, rape, and then eat kids with. (pp.181-5) Is there any definite physical evidence of dead or missing children to go on here? It doesn’t seem so.

In partial mitigation, when it comes to reproducing much evidence, there is a severe central problem at work, though, as summed up by the following infographic (p.66):

“How convenient,” some skeptics would say. “All the evidence was destroyed. Of course it was.” But this is how cover-ups work, isn’t it? My own position about the status of the testimonies in this report is that I believe their overall broad truth, collectively, but have my suspicions about a few individual ones. The narrative which gained most attention prior to the Report’s publication, for example (including from me), was the extensive bildungsroman of a girl named “Katie” who was reportedly raped inside a caravan by a dog at the behest of some Pakistanis who stood around making bets on whether it would enter her anally or vaginally.

Now being able to read this person’s fuller testimony in the complete Report, it really does resemble one of the old confected 1980s SRA narratives, with, for example, Katie beginning by creeping out of her childhood home aged twelve one night to commit suicide beneath a nearby tree due to having been abused by members of her own family—whereupon, coincidentally, she just happens to be spotted by a large gang of passing pedos and gang-raped. Everywhere she goes, this calamity-magnet individual gets raped and raped and raped again: when seen by a doctor in a hotel room, he has a go too. Whenever she tries informing on her captors, however, they drag another girl in and murder her before her very eyes, as a warning. Why didn’t they just murder Katie instead, if she was the problem here? And, again, where are all the bodies? (pp.87-99) This person’s story might be true—maybe the Inquiry has plenty of privately-held evidence to prove it is so—but by simply presenting her sensational tale here wholly on face-value, it just gives those bad-faith dhimmis who want to discredit the wider, indisputable, evidence about the existence of the rape-gangs overall some more easy ammunition to dismiss it as merely the fever-driven wet-dreams of evil white supremacist “Islamophobes” like Rupert de Boer.

True Lies?

But even here those of us who believe Rupert’s Rape Report is broadly a good piece of work have a simple way to counterattack. In the mid-2010s, numerous exceedingly lurid, SRA-type narratives began being promulgated by a complete fantasist named Carl Beech, who lied that he had been repeatedly abused as a child by various Establishment figures, many of whom were leading figures in the Conservative Party such as the secretly gay former PM Ted Heath.

Beech’s specific allegations were ridiculous: stuff like one Tory MP enjoying chopping kids’ dicks off with a penknife in Heath’s leering presence for kicks, or numerous children being killed or tortured by random members of the Conservative Party for fun. Police investigations into these lies were pathetic. Acting upon the core #MeToo principle that “victims must always be believed,” homes were raided and lives ruined for no good reason, with one officer publicly calling the claims about Heath “credible and true” even though they were not.

Odious “Nonce-Finder General” Labour MP Tom Watson, ever eager to smear those on the Right as automatic pedos, abused parliamentary privilege (it’s not legally possible for an MP to be charged with libel or slander for anything they say in the House of Commons, even if demonstrably false) to incorrectly but very publicly name and shame various innocent political opponents as being baby-killers and toddler-fondlers upon Beech’s behalf. And, because these were the “right” kind of offenders, white Right-wingers, most of the UK media lapped it all up uncritically. Whereas, right now, because the abusers exposed by the Lowe Report are the “wrong” kind of offenders, brown Muslims, they barely even mention the thing. Here’s some credulous Beech-inspired British newspaper front-pages from the time. Nothing like this about Rupert’s reported rape-gangs today. That would be highly irresponsible!

So, when today’s Left inevitably begin to squawk of Rupert Lowe that he just wants to believe all these wild fables about children being bummed by dogs, or vaginally raped with knives by a mad Pakistani Rambo, simply because he’s a bigot who hates Muslims, just stop them in mid-flow. Then, remind them how very desperate they once were to believe that Ted Heath had a fun little hobby of watching small boys get their penises snipped off with a penknife, simply because they’re bigots who hate Conservatives themselves, and see how coherently they manage to respond.

The latest news on the Inquiry is that Rupert Lowe himself now plans to make use of parliamentary privilege laws to stand up in the Commons and publicly name several of the people he thinks responsible for all these new, non-Tory, Muslim rape-gang crimes himself now, too. He needs to be extremely certain of his facts when using this quirk to name people without fear of being sued, however, as if any of the stories he mentions do turn out to be fallacious, he will soon end up being gleefully labelled as “The Far-Right Tom Watson” or something.

We don’t want to inadvertently end up with a non-existent Canadian “mass graves”-type scenario here which makes our otherwise watertight case against the unholy alliance between Islam and Leftism in the UK look misleadingly weaker than it actually is. But, even if a few of the cited Rape-Gang Inquiry witnesses do turn out to be SRA-like Carl Beech-esque fantasists, I ask broader skeptics of the scandal this—why do the even the potential liars all universally say it was specifically Muslims who did it? Because the rapists being primarily Muslim fits in with a genuine and undeniable pre-existing pattern, which automatically makes the claim more believable. If the potential SRA-like fantasists said they had been raped by marauding gangs of Archimandrites of the Russian Orthodox Church, this may have made their stories seem less immediately plausible.

When even the lies provide an overall confirmation of the overarching pattern, you know the wider allegation at play here must be a true one.

Note

You can read Lowe’s Rape-Gang Report in full online here.