The rape of Europe: When civilisation surrenders to barbarism

The acquittal of ten suspects in a Vienna sexual abuse case involving a twelve-year-old girl represents far more than a judicial failure. It signals the systematic collapse of what John Fletcher Moulton, Lord Moulton, identified over a century ago as the foundation of civilised society. The metaphorical “rape of Europe” has become disturbingly literal, and our legal institutions stand helpless before a phenomenon they were never designed to address.

In 1942, Lord Moulton delivered a prescient speech on “Law and Manners”, dividing human action into three domains. At one extreme lies the domain of positive law, where actions are prescribed by binding regulations. At the other extreme lies the domain of free choice, where individuals enjoy complete freedom. But between these two exists what Moulton called “the domain of obedience to the unenforceable”. This is the realm where men act not because they are compelled by law, but because their moral compass guides them.

This middle domain, Moulton argued, represents the true measure of a civilisation’s greatness. It encompasses those actions where “there is no law which inexorably determines our course of action, and yet we feel that we are not free to choose as we would”. Here lies the realm of duty, public spirit, and what he termed “good form”, also known as the sphere where gentlemen emerge not through legal compulsion, but through self-imposed moral restraint.

What we witness today across Vienna and countless other European cities is the systematic erosion of this crucial middle domain. The Vienna case, where ten suspects were acquitted despite video evidence and the victim’s clear expressions of unwillingness, exposes our legal system’s inability to comprehend crimes that lie outside our moral imagination. Similarly, the Hamburg park case, where nine men gang-raped a fifteen-year-old girl over several hours, resulted in suspended sentences for all but one perpetrator.

These are not isolated incidents of passion or desperation. They represent calculated, premeditated acts – often filmed by the perpetrators – carried out by groups who operate according to an entirely different moral framework. In Germany alone, we now witness between 600 and 800 gang rapes annually. This represents a crime category that scarcely existed in European consciousness until recently, but now should be dealt with on a daily basis. This is not progress, it is the descent back into barbarism,

One of Western civilisation’s greatest achievements was the emergence of the gentleman. The ideal of a man who understood his duty to protect rather than exploit the vulnerable. This concept, rooted in what the historian Tom Holland describes as Christian moral assumptions that permeate even our secular society, created a social contract where women could walk safely at night, trusting in men’s self-imposed restraint.

But this social contract requires reciprocal recognition. When mass migration introduces populations operating under fundamentally different moral systems—where women are categorised as either “good girls” (veiled, sequestered, controlled) or “ungodly girls” (available for exploitation)—the entire framework collapses. Our legal system, built on assumptions of shared moral understanding, finds itself paralyzed.

The most disturbing aspect of these cases lies not in the crimes themselves, but in the judicial response. Judges bend over backwards to excuse the inexcusable: “She appeared older than twelve”; “The sexual acts were completely consensual”; “The defendants showed remorse”. Meanwhile, the victims bear the consequences and are forced to change schools, enter a life resembling being in a witness protection programs, and flee their own communities to avoid seeing those who did them harm.

In Hamburg, a twenty-year-old woman received a harsher sentence for calling a gang rapist a “disgraceful rapist pig” than the rapist himself received for his crime. This inversion of justice—where defending the innocent becomes more punishable than destroying them—reveals a system that has lost all moral bearings.

As Lord Moulton observed, “the worst tyranny will be found in democracies.” This tyranny will not come through the direct oppression of autocrats, but through the majority’s misguided legislation driven by fashionable ideology. Today’s tyranny manifests as judicial activism that transforms perpetrators into victims through sociological alchemy: Poverty, marginalisation, and “structural exclusion” become excuses for the most heinous crimes.
The wisdom written by Adam Smith holds true: “Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.” When forensic psychiatrists explain gang rape as compensation for “marginalisation fantasies,” when judges suspend sentences because perpetrators “showed remorse,” we sacrifice our daughters on the altar of multicultural delusion.

When the domain of obedience to the unenforceable collapses, the state inevitably expands its coercive apparatus. Unable to rely on shared moral understanding, authorities resort to increasingly invasive surveillance and control. We witness this in proposals for digital identity systems, cashless societies, and comprehensive monitoring—measures that will inevitably fall most heavily on law-abiding citizens while exempting the very populations that necessitated such controls.

The bitter irony is that we may soon find ourselves living under Islamic moral strictures without Islam itself: Separating sexes in schools, restricting women’s movement, establishing moral police—all in response to problems created by importing populations who never accepted our civilizational assumptions.

Think of the Titanic disaster, where men voluntarily observed “women and children first” despite facing certain death. They did not do this because law compelled them, but because their moral training made any other response unthinkable. Today’s equivalent test reveals the opposite: Men who voluntarily organise group sexual assaults while filming their crimes for entertainment.

We face a choice that cannot be postponed much longer. Either we restore the domain of obedience to the unenforceable by ensuring that only those who accept our civilisational premises remain among us, or we surrender that domain entirely and accept the authoritarian consequences.

The first option requires acknowledging uncomfortable truths about cultural compatibility and implementing deportation policies for those unwilling to internalise European moral standards. The second leads to a surveillance state that would make Orwell blanch, combined with the practical implementation of Islamic social controls to manage populations that never accepted liberal assumptions.

This choice will likely determine Europe’s fate within the next five to seven years. We are past the point of gradual reform or multicultural bridge-building. The Titanic has struck the iceberg; the only question now is whether enough passengers recognise the danger to organise effective response before the ship disappears beneath the waves.

The rape of Europe—both metaphorical and literal—continues because we lack the civilisational confidence to defend what previous generations built. Until we rediscover that confidence, or until demographic realities make the choice for us, European women will continue paying the price for our intellectual cowardice and moral confusion.