Sacagawea, Slavery and Solzenitsyn: What history has to teach us about rape gangs

I recently read an interesting passage about sex slavery written a hundred years ago about Sacagawea. She was a sex slave. I found that interesting because I wasn't taught that in school. Her Shoshone Plains tribe in Montana was attacked by the Minitari raiding party who traveled all the way from North Dakota. The Minitari (who are also called Hidatsu) killed a bunch of Shoshone and took the girls as slaves/wives. But the man who owned her had a bad run of gambling, and Sacagawea was sold to a French fur trader who was neither handsome nor kind.

So, yeah. That was normal. What was interesting was that there was no religious or philosophical justification. If another tribe pulled off a good ambush on your tribe, they took your women and horses.

It was pretty similar to a Greek king who was captured as a slave by another Greek king.* The enslaved one helped the victor. He had won after all. The gods must have favored him. Many Native Americans of the 1800s would agree.

For many decades. The most terrifying of the Native Americans were the Comanche. They would torture their opponents in extreme ways. While doing so, they told the younger members of their tribe that if they were ever taken alive, the same would happen to them. Comanche warriors were noticeably harder to take alive than even other highly skilled Indigenous warriors.

A white lady talking about being the rape victim by a Pakistani grooming gang mentions something similar. Boys related to the Muslim grooming gangs were brought in to copulate. At first they were reluctant. The rape victim described them as even being kind of nice. But were called gay and weak by the older men. It was clever in a horrific way. Boys at that age will do anything to prove their masculinity. Quickly, the boys became cruel like the men.

Once the boys engage in this, they have to believe that the white non-Muslim women are unclean and unholy, that what they are doing is justified. It's literally the practice of cults to encourage members to engage in horrific forms of sexuality and then guilt them into loyalty. Wicked as it is, it seems to work because it shows up a lot.

If there were Comanche women who objected to the torture and rape of non-Comanche Indians and whites, I haven't heard about it. Similar thing with the Pakistani rape gangs in Britain. While there are rare Pakistani women whose parents are from strictly secular backgrounds and who have criticized the rape gangs, they usually don't live among the normal Pakistani community. The vast majority of females go along with the male tribal culture of rape and subjugation.

What makes Islam distinct from other forms of tribal culture is that Muslims require philosophical justification for rape and slavery. The Quran grants it and grants it easily.

Surah 4:24 permits sex slaves from raiding infidels. (Those who your right hand possesses.) The Quran also paints Jews and Christians as the eternal other. Surah 5:51 is even worse: "O believers! Take neither Jews nor Christians as guardians—they are guardians of each other.1 Whoever does so will be counted as one of them. Surely Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people."

So the Quran gives justification to sex slavery as long as it is done against non-Muslims.

A more intellectually stimulating and competently written book than the Quran is the Gulag Archipelago. This particular quotation is a bit longer than what most of you have read online, but it's worth it. Solzhenitsyn isn't even talking about slavery, but if you get human psychology right you can explain almost anything.

Macbeth's self-justifications were feeble—and his conscience devoured him. Yes, even lago was a little lamb too. The imagination and the spiritual strength of Shakespeare's evildoers stopped short at a dozen corpses. Because they had no ideology.

Ideology—that is what gives evildoing its long-sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination. That is the social theory which helps to make his acts seem good instead of bad in his own and others' eyes, so that he won't hear reproaches and curses but will receive praise and honors. That was how the agents of the Inquisition fortified their wills: by invoking Christianity; the conquerors of foreign lands, by extolling the grandeur of their Motherland; the colonizers, by civilization; the Nazis, by race; and the Jacobins (early and late), by equality, brotherhood, and the happiness of future generations.

Thanks to ideology, the twentieth century was fated to experience evildoing on a scale calculated in the millions. This cannot be denied, nor passed over, nor suppressed. How, then, do we dare insist that evildoers do not exist? And who was it that destroyed these millions? Without evildoers there would have been no Archipelago.

There was a rumor going the rounds between 1918 and 1920 that the Petrograd Cheka, headed by Uritsky, and the Odessa Cheka, headed by Deich, did not shoot all those condemned to death but fed some of them alive to the animals in the city zoos. I do not know whether this is truth or calumny, or, if there were any such cases, how many there were. But I wouldn't set out to look for proof, either. Following the practice of the bluecaps, I would propose that they prove to us that this was impossible. How else could they get food for the zoos in those famine years? Take it away from the working class? Those enemies were going to die anyway, so why couldn't their deaths support the zoo economy of the Republic and thereby assist our march into the future? Wasn't it expedient?

That is the precise line the Shakespearean evildoer could not cross. But the evildoer with ideology does cross it, and his eyes remain dry and clear.

Remember that the Communists always thought that they were the good guys. When Pakistani gangs torture and rape these girls, they truly are doing it for a good god. The terrorism endemic throughout the Muslim population is based on people trying to be good. It will therefore be much more difficult to end than Native American sex slavery.

The Comanches negotiated a good piece of land with the white governments under Chief Quanah Parker. They became peaceful outside of joining the U.S. military. The Comanches, to this day, are less poor than other Native-American tribes because they have land well suited for cattle ranching. The Comanche had no great ideological justifications for their bad treatment of other tribes. When the power dynamics shifted, they shifted with it. Such a deal isn't doable with Muslims or Marxists. We have to contend with their horrible ideology as well as tribalism.

*I can't remember whether it was Thucydides or Herodotus who wrote about this, but it was a respectable Greek.