Some passages from "Easy Meat." Most of the most horrific stuff has circulated on X already, but I want to emphasize the complicity of UK institutions with the rape gangs. As early as 1988, the authorities knew about it. It sparked a Sikh race riot when the cops did nothing.
Childcare professionals were talking about rape gangs in Bradford in 1991, more than 20 years before the first prosecutions. Authorities did nothing this entire time.
The children's charity Barnardo's created a project to educate 5-13 year old girls (!) about the threat of groomers in Bradford in 1995, but never once mentioned ethnicity or religion, and didn't try to spark prosecutions.
Social services in Rotherham knew about the gangs in 1996, and Sikhs had their own institutions putting out warnings. Authorities did nothing for decades.
Channel 4 news mentioned that in 2003 more than 30 white girls, some as young as 11, were known to be raped and pimped in Keighley. No mention of "who" and no broader outcry.
A 2004 documentary about the gangs was censored at the request of the local police, who feared race riots. Let this be a lesson: if you want the British state to stop your girls from being raped and pimped, you have to credibly threaten to burn down cities.
West Yorkshire police had a unit to investigate the gangs, but shut it down over fear of racism, which is why there were no prosecutions until 2013 when the problem was known in 2003. Accusations of racism should be taken as mass rape apologia.
The Serious Organized Crime Agency made a documentary about the gangs in 2008 with reference to the term for their Dutch equivalents, Loverboys, but never actually showed it to its intended audience (school girls at risk).
Another 2008 BBC documentary (which never mentioned ethnicity or religion) about the gangs that made waves in Parliament, who therefore also knew by then.
It took until 2011 for the omerta around the gangs to really crack with Andrew Norfolk's article, possibly impelled by EDL protests.
Schools knew about "Asian" men loitering outside to pick up their victims, but did nothing to educate about the threat, possibly because the teacher's unions were in the pocket of an org called "Unite Against Fascism" (as you can guess from the name, a pro-child-rape org).
Local councils also knew, and actively covered things up, both to avoid criticism and out of concern for "racism."
Police knew and did nothing, even when parents did all the investigation for them, and even when the victims themselves called them for help. Again out of concern for racism. Anti-racism means covering up mass child rape.
The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) barely touched the gangs (by far the most horrific and large-scale child exploitation in Britain), instead focusing on online pedos and foreign trafficking, even when parents asked for help.
David Winnick, Labour MP for Walsall North tried (and failed) to insert a rider into the Home Affairs Select Committe report that “the perception, that grooming perpetrators are largely of Asian, British Asian or Muslim origin” was false, a flagrant and known lie.
Children's charity Barnado's which knew about the problem since 1996, never talked about the ethnicity of the perpetrators or victims.
Academics worked assiduously to... obfuscate the races of the victims and perpetrators.
This whole book is sickening. Big takeaway: almost every institution for children's welfare in Britain knew about the rape gangs decades before any prosecutions and worked hard to cover up the massive industrial scale child rape and prostitution of white girls by Pakistani men. The only group to really push back on this was the Sikhs by rioting themselves. Throughout all of this, the UK continued giving visas to Pakistani men and paying them large sums of money to live in England. UK delenda est.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Removing teachers (and soldiers, for fairness) lowers the gap, but it's still a big difference.
You can get slightly different numbers depending on what source you use and what exactly you count as public, but they all tell the same substantive story.
New blog post (link below). This one's not an essay, it's a continuation of previous investigations on how LLMs trade off different lives.
In February 2025, the Center for AI Safety published "Utility Engineering: Analyzing and Controlling Emergent Value Systems in AIs" in which they showed, among many other things, that GPT-4o values Nigerians about 20x more highly than Americans (please read the original paper to understand their approach). I updated their framework with different categories and newer models in October 2025, and discovered that with the exception of Grok 4 (Fast), all models placed far more value on the lives of "left-coded" groups (nonwhites, non-men, LGBTQ, immigrants, leftists, Third Worlders) over "right-coded" groups (whites, men, non-queers, ICE agents, rightists, First Worlders). For example, Sonnet 4.5 saw the lives of South Asians as about 18 times as valuable as the lives of whites.
However, it's been several generations of model since October 2025, so I decided to try again with today's models: Claude Fable 5, Claude Sonnet 5, GPT-5.6 Sol, Grok 4.5, and Kimi K3. As it turns out, all of them are MUCH more egalitarian than their counterparts (except Grok 4.5, since Grok 4 was already egalitarian) from a year ago.
Finding 1: Sonnet 5 was the only model even close to last year's models, valuing nonwhites roughly four times higher than whites.
Finding 2: GPT-5.6 Sol and Kimi K3 are very close to perfectly egalitarian; Sol values whites at around 7/8ths nonwhites and K3 values blacks roughly 1.3 times as much as whites; these are tiny ratios by the standards of last year.
Finding 3: Claude Fable is pretty much perfectly egalitarian. This is very, very different from last year's Claude models. Grok 4.5 has retained the egalitarianism of previous generations of Grok despite the giant increase in capabilities and different team.
Every model I tested would have been the most egalitarian model (aside from Grok 4) last year. All models have come to resemble Grok in their exchange rates.
This is wrong. Kirk was not a particularly hated figure before he was killed; he was seen by Redditor-types as a goofy meme figure of mockery (see below, from 2023). He was only demonized by lefties *after* he was murdered, to retroactively justify the assassination.
Kirk was not a case of the lib hate machine whipping up hatred against someone until someone took a shot at him, it was a case of the lib hate machine ramping up after he was murdered.
This is one of the reasons why his murder was so shocking; I sort of expected people taking shots at Trump or Stephen Miller or even Elon Musk, who libs collectively saw as Hitler II, but not Kirk, who they mostly saw as a lolcow.
Thread with excerpts from "Foundations, their power and influence" (1958), by the former chairman of the Reece Committee, a Congressional committee to investigate the conduct of tax-exempt foundations.
The administrators of the great foundations formed an interlocking cartel wielding (illegally) immense political and cultural influence using other people's money, as the foundations are tax exempt.
Foundations are tax-exempt because they are supposed to be run for public benefit.
Thread with excerpts from "The French Intifada: The Long War Between France and its Arabs" (2014). This book, by a leftist (participant in communes) author, portrays race riots by Arab immigrants to France as simply one more episode in a centuries-long war between the two.
Both the French Left and Right framed the 2005 riots as part of the long French tradition of revolt. But they were wrong; the protestors were mostly Arabs rioting against France itself, not against "the bosses" or "the state."
The rioters (remember, Arab immigrants and their descendants) see themselves as soldiers in a long war against France, Europe, and even civilization itself. Recall that the author is on their side.
'The Unknown Warriors' (2006) is a collection of WWII veteran's views on modern Britain gathered via newspaper ad. So what did WWII veterans think of the 2006 UK? They hated it; 134 responses were negative vs only 6 positive (plus 31 N/A and 13 neutral). Excerpts below.
The below is typical (from a D-Day veteran): "I am absolutely disgusted with the way things are turning out... and sometimes wonder if it was worth all the suffering of a war."
"I have many, many misgivings on how matters have turned out. Problems seem to be resolved, by more and more legislation, instead of action at the source... What many veterans abhor, is the acceptance of homosexuality as the norm."