If you by "covering up" your mean "not hysterically giving it blanket coverage in the tabloid press". I guess. It's a spectator.uk link, so I didn't bother checking.

There has been a lot of funny business in how this and similar incidents have been handled, though.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/16/opinion/can-germany-be-honest-about-its-refugee-problems.html

Yeah, it absolutely is a reasonable concern that all these attacks would fuel anti-immigrant sentiment from the far-right in Europe. Unfortunately, by having the authorities and established media obfuscate the scale of the crimes and it's perpetrators it's only exasperated it. There was a lot of frustration from rationally minded people that this seemed to be swept under the rug apparently to appease political correctness. Which allowed the far-right to lead the charge in demanding answers. Now the cat is out of the bag and there are serious changes to policy being made. But the damage has been done to the public trust.

Given that "far right" in Europe equates to "sensibly leftish" in America, I find it hard to get terribly worried. The demographic genocide of Europe will continue to proceed apace.

While the US centre is right of the European centre, I'm pretty sure the "far right" in Europe would be just as unpalatable to most Americans.

Nah, Europe has full-on romper stomper fascists. The Swedish Democrats for example is an entire political party composed of Donald Trumps. Only, they actually believe in the shit they say.

It's easy for me to say because I don't live there, but it seems to me that England could use a little more Enoch Powell and a whole lot less Rotherham sex abuse scandals.

The protesters will be firehosed until the rape complaints stop https://t.co/z3fLlWlwgH

— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) January 9, 2016

I'm probably naive, but can somebody explain this to me?

Where is the thrill or "benefit" in being one of, say 25 guys, that attacks a woman in public? I don't understand how this could be much of a (hetero)sexual thrill. It seems to me like this behavior is either just purely misogynistic - about abuse, not sex - or weirdly homosexual, in that these guys might enjoy being surrounded by other guys getting excited ???

What is the carnal motivation? I don't get it.

I think it's a combination of misogyny and the thrill one gets from misbehaving with impunity.

You're pretty close to the answer there, imo. Remember that rape is about expressing dominion and power through violence, with sex being a secondary concern. These invaders (sorry, but they are neither refugees nor immigrants) are trying, in a twisted way, to attain full citizenship. We see the reverse corollary in the First World in the vanishingly rare incidence of white men raping black women. There is no power to be gained in raping someone who is already a second class citizen so it just doesn't happen.

Also, the smell.

You might find this interesting; http://quillette.com/2016/01/02/to-rape-is-to-want-sex-not-power/

There are a couple of good points in that, but I don't think they ultimately make a very strong case. For one, sex is such a powerful motivator, it can be linked to just about any human activity. It's the background noise to the majority of a human life.

They also are looking at power very one dimensionally. The application of brute force is certainly one type, but they don't even seem to consider the conspicuous consumption aspect. Just as The Who would smash their guitars because they were rich and could do whatever they wanted (also, too: Pete Townshend's "research"), Elin Krantz was used up and tossed aside. They perhaps wisely don't even touch on how female power dynamics work,.

Yes, sex is a powerful motivator, and I find it astonishing that I'm pushing shit uphill suggesting that a 'desire for sex' would be the most likely motivator for an individual forcing another into sex. Instead one has to wade through a nonsensical offshoot of the post-communist dialectic that views all interactions between people as a contest between groups for power, and as the linked article made quite clear, there is no shred of evidence to support this grand theoretical framework.

Furthermore, the consequences of this theoretical framework are frankly absurd, and we're left with such nonsense as the allegation that all men are the secret beneficiaries of every single act of rape.

There's only one thing that rapists want, and it's not a restoration of the patriarchy.

Susan Brownmiller is the person who said that it was about violence and not sex. I'm saying that it's violence first and then sex. I mean, I would very strongly like to throw about half a dozen octoroon babies into Misty Copeland , but it would take much more than a biological imperative to get me to risk prison (or more likely, me getting beaten to death by her) to attempt it. Sex alone doesn't explain it, except perhaps in the case of statutory rape. To be fair, violence and dominance don't cover every conceivable situation either. Female rapists may be looking for validation, for example.

Of course, we're both looking at it from a Western perspective. It may very well have seemed to the Cologne attackers that they were doing the equivalent of picking up broken bottles out of the street.

Citation badly needed, cos that is a big steaming load of crap right there.

(ETA: specifically the claim that white men raping black women is vanishingly rare.)

Allow me to introduce you to the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey. I'm not married to its conclusions (statistics are one step below damned lies, after all), but when viewed as a composite with the FBI's Table 43 some interesting inferences can be drawn. What I choose to take away from it is that crime in general is underreported (FBI stats are drawn from, among other places, local law enforcement, who are under immense pressure to make their cities look more livable), and that white on black rape is, as I said, vanishingly rare in recent years. I will concede that, owing to the margin of error, as many as nine white on black rapes could have occurred before they would have showed up at all in the Victimization Survey.

I don't ask that you apologize or thank me for correcting your misconceptions. All I ask is that you not take the knowledge I have bequeathed upon you and go shoot up a church in Charleston. A little learning is a dangerous thing.

Also, since you didn't bring it up, i'm assuming we're basically in accord on the coochie funk issue?

What your source shows it that rapes of black women by white men are very rarely reported to the police, which is an entirely different matter. The vast majority of rapes do not generate police reports, in no small part due to the way that police commonly treat rape victims, a problem which is only compounded if the victim is black, and compounded further if the attacker is white.

I couldn't help but notice you don't have a facile rationalization for why black women are so willing to report black men for the crime by the thousands.

You really can't see why a black woman might have less confidence pressing charges against a white man than a black man... you're just embarrassing yourself now, man. Go learn a little something about race relations in the U.S. before you start looking even dimmer. Rape culture too, come to that.

I'm sure it is the same kind of motivation that causes frat house parties to include gang rapes of drunk girls, and the like: too much hormones, too few restraints, and mob mentality, either that "they won't catch us all" or the contrasting crowd mentality "someone else will help, right?"

Sounds to me like this is poor behaviour of some surly Yoofs, and the only things that seem to elevate this above the typical "campus rape" class of story (which i'm not trying to diminish, just giving a comparable travesty) is that the perpetrators are non-citizens, and that the practice has been seen before in the middle east during times of little to no proper rule of law, and high unemployment of said Yoofs.

That doesn't mean law enforcement shouldn't be made aware of the practice and be trained to be on the lookout for future actions, but it *does* mean that sweeping "no more than X brown men in shirtpants may congregate" type approach is outright xenophobia and should be also labelled as such.

I know that you're not using it as such, but FYI, "yoofz", "youths", and "teens" are often used as dog whistle type words to disparagingly refer to non-huwhite* criminals in polite company where words like "nigger", "dindu", and "mudslime" won't be well received.

*and of course, huwhite is making fun of the way Jared Taylor pronounces it.

Interesting, I have heard it in context as more class-based, not race-based. Synonymous with Chav, or White trash, generally meant to encompass the large mass of young, unemployed typically male folks who have nothing better to do with their time than get wasted and break things. But YMMV and I would not want other folk to believe I meant something else. Maybe i'll just stick with "shitheads" who can, in fact, get off my lawn.

The name "Jared Taylor" didn't mean anything to me, so I looked him up. What a total wanker. He does have an odd way of speaking, I'd like to hear him interviewed by Tom Brokaw. They might be related, or from the same home town.

The video is interesting but not at all clear why you posted this in response to me. She is accurate in saying two things: 1) that Islam allows the taking of slaves from an aggressor in military conflict (effectively POW become indentured servants), and 2) claiming that bringing a prostitute or mistress from a foreign land to be your private harem is not the same thing, and is in conflict with Islam's teachings. Fucking your slaves is not new either, and claiming that this constitutes rape and violates our standards (which it does, but so does slavery at all) is really missing the context in which both the quotes are taken, as well as the timeframe in which the original scriptures were written.

Islam also apparently supports other forms of polygamy (like this example where the "sex-slave" is considered allowed concurrent to a true wife), and in some cases mandates it, for example you are supposed to marry your brother's wife if he dies in battle. And you can take on more wives, as long as your first wife approves. Sharia also (from what I have been told, this is all second hand) specifies that in the case of polygamy that the first wife gets the majority of your possessions upon your death, and then the remaining portion is divided again, infinitely through however many you have. Oh, and divorce is cool, as long as you say "I divorce you" three times in public in front of other men.

Obviously as a woman (slave or otherwise) you are considered a man's property, like a cow or a goat, but that's not really unique to Islam, so much as is a recurring thread of all Abrahamic thought, and some Bhuddist as well (in my experience, YMMV)

My mileage did vary. Considerably.

If you scour the globe to find of an exponent of “Abrahamic thought” outlining, on television, the appropriate rules for keeping slaves and raping women you will find nothing. Why is that? Because no such thing exists.

Yet here is Professor Suad Saleh of Al-Azhar University explaining exactly that – no doubt part of the university’s popular survey course, “Islam, Rape and Slavery, 101”.

You equivocate about the notion that “fucking your slaves” is rape with some irrelevant reference to “the timeframe in which the original scriptures were written.” This is 2016, not 632 – and this woman, a modern day spokesperson, and educator, for Islam, is outlining when a good and faithful Muslim man can rape. In this view of Islam, rape isn’t a problem per se; it just has to be kept kosher. How you find the relevance of that hard to fathom is beyond me.

OK, maybe I missed the point, or maybe you did, after all this clip is edited, and out of context for the beginning or end of it all we are left with is her explaining what Islam (text, holy book of) does state with regards to polygamy with slaves who are captured in war, and that Muslims bringing foreign women into their family under this "law" is not in fact supported by any holy text or Sharia, ergo she is arguing against the practice, not supporting it. And I still don't get what this has to do with the comment I made initially :)

If you want to see other people advocating for polygamy under a pseudo-Christian environment, you only need to visit Utah. If you want to see Christians advocating for the treatment of women as chattel, go visit the Amish. There are conservative factions of Christianity that would argue quite rightly that the Bible does advocate rape (implicitly, through expressions like "submission" rather than directly, but I'm not a native Farsi speaker so I have to assume the English subs are an accurate translation - even so sbe never says "rape", only that having sex with your slave is allowed), as well as various and sundry other forms of punishment including slavery that in "civilized society" we consider abhorent, but that doesn't mean you won't find theologians arguing about them, or that these same sort of arguments about what "god's law" enables a person to do / not do aren't happening within other religions.

Modern Christianity and Judaeism tend to ignore the "laws" that are actually outlined in their holy books and instead lean on more liberal interpretations; there are no doubt more progressive people practicing Islam that do as well, but it is clear to you and me and anyone else who bothers to look at what is happening in the ME today that large factions of the Muslim populace there are taking their 1500 year old laws quite literally and believe that practicing them verbatim is the "true" path to spirituality. I find their rants no more or less troubling that watching hassidic jews walk around, also following their 5000 year old teachings. To me they are all batshit crazy.

"Maybe I missed the point, or maybe you did."
I concur.

Migrant men? I understood that the attacks in Cologne were committed by native Germans, American tourists, & Serbian tourists as well. Blaming it all on refugees seems disingenuous.

Initial reports downplayed the possibility that the attacks were perpetrated by migrant men for obvious political reasons. It has since been revealed that it was almost exclusively migrant men, or 'men of north African origin'. It was also co-ordinated, and took place in at least ten cities in several countries.

Sauce;
http://www.siawi.org/article10593.html

Dear steele,

If you find that SE is becoming more like 4chan or Breitbart (like if it reaches a threshold of those kinds of posts) could you let me know? ;_;

SE... you're my boy, Blue!
-Althy

My Dearest Althy,

There's a moderation function for a reason.

Always,
steele

.