In Britain, 16 year olds can work, pay taxes, join the military, consent to sex, get married (with parental permission), drive, etc., but apparently using tiktok is a bridge too far.

The Starmer regime is currently trying to pass a law (Representation of the People Bill) that will give 16 & 17 year olds the right to vote in national elections.

Such a policy is obviously self-serving, as youth in Britain lean left-wing, but will they vote for the party that just banned them all from using social media?

The Green Party, Labor's biggest competitors, support the social media ban and demand stronger regulation (censorship) of social media companies.

Digital ID through the back door.

UK government statement on forthcoming device- and OS-level "child safety" spyware and censorship (distinct from the under 16s social media ban I posted about earlier):

"Under the new plans, Big Tech companies like Apple and Google must activate built-in features or implement technical solutions on smartphones and tablets to detect and block nude images for children, the Prime Minister announced in a speech at London Tech Week today (Monday 8 June)."

"Adults will still be able to take, share or view nude content through an age verification process."

"If companies do not act within 3 months, the government will bring forward legislation to force them to activate the technology. This will include fines for companies. Nothing is off the table"

The Starmer regime will likely try to force these restrictions upon PC operating systems, such as Windows, and eventually ISPs.

Signal criticized the requirements as "dystopian" and explicitly called out the grooming gang coverup:

"The UK government’s demand that all content on all devices sold or used in the UK be scanned on the presumption of nudity will not safeguard children. It endangers us all."

"We know that mass surveillance and censorship capabilities never remain narrowly scoped. Once created, they will be expanded, forming a dangerous tool that will be wielded both in the UK and abroad to censor and surveil whatever they might consider 'threats' or 'harmful content.' Its scope will be defined by the whims and proscriptions of the government to detect nudity today and political speech tomorrow."

Remember: Libtards and tradcucks in America are trying to implement similar totalitarian laws under the guise of "saving the children." See here and here.

Ethnic breakdowns of grooming gang suspects from studies conducted 2011 to 2020. The most recent reports from this list put the figures at approximately 85-95% non-white and ~85% muslim.

https://t.me/racerealismchannel/365

In Britain, 19,000 children were raped by grooming gangs in a single year.

Considering this only includes *identified* victims, I think the Grooming Gang Inquiry Report figure of at least 250,000 victims is likely accurate.

Every institution in Britain was involved with either the perpetration or coverup of this industrial scale child rape — cops, hospitals, schools, social services, state media, etc. You'd probably have to capitally punish at least half of the public sector to fix that country.

I doubt that grooming gangs were covered up to "preserve social cohesion" or because everybody was terrified of being called "racist." We know British cops were, and probably still are, raping kids. How likely is it that people higher up the British political system are implicated? Starmer covered up 13,000 cases and they made him prime minister. How do grooming gangs related to broader criminal underworld in Britain? Money laundering, fraud, narcotics, etc.?

It's clear that grooming gangs are primarily operated by ethno-religious mafias, and that South Asian muslims commit the vast majority of these heinous crimes, but I don't believe a coverup of this scale would be conducted merely in the name of "anti-racism."

The age gap "pedophilia" moral panic, spawned by feminism and kicked into overdrive during the #MeToo era that began circa 2017, is a potentially civilization-ruining phenomenon. I am, of course, not referring to very real problems, like grooming gangs in Britain, but the fact that 18-year-old boys are frequently accused of being an "Epstein diddy blud" merely for talking to 17-year-old girls. If you wanted to vaporize our already plummeting birth rates, stigmatizing any age gap larger than that between identical twins is a great way to do it.

Girls typically reach physical sexual maturity (adult secondary sexual characteristics) between the ages of 15 and 17, while boys mature a couple of years later. Yet, it is disturbingly common to conflate an 18-year-old dating a 16-year-old — a relationship between two biological adults, legal everywhere in the West aside from a handful of deranged US states — with a 40-year-old raping a 9-year-old. Apparently, the people who do this have no problem with trivializing actual pedophilia (the sexual abuse of prepubescents), which causes immense and long-lasting harm.

The crux of this issue is that healthy male heterosexuality — the preference for younger but sexually mature women — has effectively been criminalized. Meanwhile, older-female age gap relationships are constantly celebrated by the Gynocratic World Order (see e.g. the safe-horny "dommy mommy" phenomenon), to the extent that female teachers who sleep with their male students are routinely spared jail time and socially excused: "Where was she when I was a student?!"

For all of human history until very recently, older-male-age-gap relationships were regarded as normal and good; the average age gap in America from 1850 to 1950 was 4.5 years. Even today, in face of widespread moral hysteria, the average 23-year-old white man and woman in the West prefer partners who are 2 and 3 years older than themselves, respectively. The evolutionary theory is simple: Men prefer fertile women, women prefer men who can provide for offspring; women are most fertile when young, men accumulate resources with age.

Older-male age-gap relationships produce more children, with total lifetime fertility peaking at +7 years (although the variation from +3 to +13 years is very small). The negative fertility effect of older wives begins immediately at +1 year and declines linearly; at +3.5 years, couples produce 0.5 fewer children, on average. Obviously, this is due to women's limited fertility window, which is much smaller than commonly believed: by age 31, ~10% of women are sterile and ~50% are subfertile (they have difficulty conceiving, decreased egg quality, etc).

In case it were not immediately obvious, I will state explicitly that I do not endorse procreation between e.g. 16-year-old girls and 60-year-old grandpas with mutationally-loaded sperm. The risk of deleterious de novo mutations increases with age, and while the effects are small, they compound over generations, as the botched are no longer filtered out of the genepool via natural selection. Moreover, Joseph Bronski has provided evidence of a paternal age effect on leftism, whereby older fathers produce more hereditarily left-wing babies.

To increase birth rates and reduce dysgenics, early marriage should be encouraged, particularly among the intelligent. Ideally, both husband and wife should be in their late teens to very early 20s. Older-male relationships between young adults (~16-25) should also be destigmatized. Society should be restructured to ensure that intelligent couples can have as many children as possible before age 30-35; reduce time spent in education, prioritize youth for high-paying jobs, give intelligent young men huge lump sums per child (funded by e.g. abolishing welfare), and so on.