You should read all of this, but if you don't have the time, I have the main points.

If you aren't familiar with MP Rupert Lowe's Rape Gang Inquiry Report that he released in June, I will leave our summary here for you to scan:

Dr. Jordan Peterson, who has been struggling with medication-induced injury and "chronic inflammatory response syndrome" for the past few years, has remained almost entirely out of the public sphere since an announcement from his daughter in August 2025.

Many things have happened in the world since he's been away.

Here are a few insights Peterson had about the mass sex trafficking scandal that has rocked the UK, but is still being ignored by many UK politicians and the media.

1) The West and its justice system developed out of specific morals and traditions.

It was the Judeo-Christian ethic that made truthfulness, in the West, a matter of eternal consequence. Integrity in word and deed, on pain of hellfire: from that demand grew the majority of the world's most peaceful and productive societies. On the reward side? Heaven beckoned to those who conducted themselves in the requisite manner. A culture that had made revenge an art gave way to one in which the admirable man was honest in all things. A society noble in the archaic sense — one where the strong, as a matter of course, oppressed the weak — was transformed into one where strength itself came to be defined as willingness to stand up for and protect the vulnerable. The magnitude and impossibility of this accomplishment can hardly be overstated.

On the stick side was a judicial system that, from 1500 to 1750, executed or otherwise eliminated one to two percent of men per generation. During this period, homicide and other crime rates plummeted. Some argue that such severity exerted genuine evolutionary pressure, reducing the prevalence of antisocial traits; most scholars, less controversially, attribute the transformation to psychological and social factors alone.

2) Righteous justice systems lead people to trust, which leads to complacency, which leads to blindness.

Peterson notes that "high-trust" societies can be found in both the East and West, and these societies order themselves on law, religious values, tradition, and reputation - what one might call "civilization."

There is a risk, however, when civilized behavior becomes predictable. When honesty, safety, and security become the norm, their unlikelihood, the difficulty of their achievement, and the persistent reality of criminal actors (or worse) can be forgotten. Where a widespread peace has reigned throughout living memory, the fact that man can be a wolf to man becomes foreign. Trust degenerates into naïveté; empathy becomes less a laudable virtue than an incautious invitation to exploitation. Once people are more sheep to be fleeced than courageous traders, the wolves close in.

3) What happened in the UK was racist in nature, and it was about "sexual conquest," not mere sadism.

What this directly means is that large numbers of men, drawn disproportionately from the most populous subgroup of the UK Muslim immigrant population, were actively engaged in what can only be called hate crimes, directed at the most vulnerable members of their host society — and worse: that within the networks these men organized, the crimes were regarded not as immoral but as justified, warranted by the supposed religious and cultural depravity of the girls, and of the society that produced them.

...

Not grooming, then. Not even rape. Something more brutal, efficient and planned; something motivated, furthermore, by the presumption of individual and cultural superiority, on ideological, moral — even religious — grounds.

Something akin to domination. Something akin, even more precisely, to… conquest. But let us also not forget the specific and dreadful means of domination and conquest — one so often applied on the open battlefield: rape, of the most vicious sort. Thus, a more fitting term: sexual conquest.

These then were sexual conquest gangs: organized networks for whom the bodies of the outgroup's daughters were territory to be held in contempt, taken and spoiled — the ancient tribal warfare of pillage and rape, conducted under conditions of nominal peace, against a host society too trusting, too tolerant, and finally too afraid to name what was happening.

4) The British authorities who covered up the sexual conquest are guilty of declaring war on their countrymen.

...though the crimes were explicitly racially and religiously motivated — though the victims, and everything they represented, were purposefully subjected to cruelty and degradation over and above the sexual exploitation — virtually none were prosecuted or sentenced as racially aggravated offenses. No category of offense fits the designation of hate crime more precisely, or better justifies its existence.

And if that's not enough — and it's already more than enough — the crimes included not only the sexual sadism, exploitation and domination graphically outlined in Lowe's Inquiry, but the equally reprehensible official response: cover-up, and even prosecution of the victims. Subsequent investigations confirmed what victims and some frontline workers had reported for years: police, social services and local councils knew, and preferred not to admit, what was happening. In consequence, thousands of girls were raped, trafficked and degraded while the authorities stood by, afraid of being called racist and anxious to protect 'community relations.'

That's not negligence. That's not institutional failure. That's collusion with the worst of men — in the service of an illusory, even fraudulent multicultural peace.

And:

And what exactly are we admitting exists, if we refuse the cover-up? What are the cascading implications of the fact that sexual conquest gangs operated untrammelled and unrecognized in what was until recently an honest, secure and productive society — one where high trust was the proper order of the day?

Certainly the societal division we are constantly warned against, not least by those attempting to justify their own failure to act. Certainly the demand for justice for the victims and criminal responsibility of the perpetrators — a demand mounting rather than declining with the passage of time. Certainly the necessity of reconsidering the cherished liberal axioms that produced mass immigration from the very cultures in which such predation found its justification — and that forbade naming it once it arrived. And what does that imply for the multicultural project itself? For immigration policy going forward? For the — justified? — resurgence of nationalism?

There are yet more brutal questions waiting to be asked. How does honest admission of the problem embolden that element of the right for whom mass deportation is the most rather than the least liberal of the available options? Why should the traditional British public not conclude that a virtual state of war now exists in the country they patriotically cherish? Given that thousands of men in organized networks sadistically exploited, physically brutalized and psychologically destroyed hundreds of thousands of that country's most vulnerable citizens, justifying their predation on essentially religious grounds, and prosecuting it with a toxic combination of sex and violence?

5) The guilty must be punished severely, or else there will be an "over-correction" that invites violence to consume the nation.

The guilty and the complicit alike must be punished with a severity that matches the crime — a crime which combines the worst elements of mafia-like organization, sexual assault, sadism, pedophilia, traitorous betrayal, and racial, religious and ethnic hatred. Indeed, a truer and more serious crime of hate — precisely the offense so recently codified by those most likely to turn a blind eye in this case — can scarcely be imagined.

The last quote is the most haunting.

Whether you like it or not, whether you think it is just or not, a wrong has been committed that is so egregious that it cannot be simply pushed under the carpet.

The center cannot hold.

Things are in motion that cannot be stopped:

Continued suppression of the normative majority's insistence that cultural norms be upheld — that is, that vicious, hate-motivated serial rapists face consequences — will do nothing but ensure that when the tide turns, it turns with a vengeance.

The writing is already on the wall.

In Plato's Republic, Socrates famously tried to get his acquaintances to define justice. The Bible argues that justice is embodied in the person of God Himself. As such, it is as much a law of Nature as gravity or thermodynamics.

You may dam it behind high walls, but the pressure will build and build and build. Did you think it was a coincidence that the Bible describes justice as "rolling waters"?

The right conduit for the mandatory flow of justice is for humans to "provide new Guards for their future security" by implementing governments that will be a "servant of God" to "carry out God's wrath on the wrongdoer."

Governments are necessary because, as James Madison said in Federalist #51, men are not angels.

But governments that do whatever they want are like a man who throws a bowling ball above his head without considering that it will come down.

The laws of justice are fixed.

If the United Kingdom does not immediately abandon its woke lunacy - if it continues to build dams to hold justice back, or to redefine justice, or to carry out one-sided justice, then the dam will break.

When dams break, water finds the path of least resistance.

And the path of least resistance in "the course of human events" is always the same. 👇