The Friendly Face of Child Rape

Or why gay and Pakistani child rapists get away with it

The Zulock “family” (Instagram / @zackjzulock)

Look at the picture above. Try to put yourself in the mind of the mainstream, official culture. What does it say?

The garish t-shirts implicitly tell you this is a loving “family,” concerned about equal rights and LBGTQ2S+ (did I miss any?) issues. Explicitly, the shirts command you to love them. The physical closeness of their bodies and the smiles on their faces tell you this family is close-knit and friendly. The “fathers” would certainly be supportive and accepting if either or both of their “sons” were to come out as gay or identify as trans. They are probably responsible parents, putting the lie to all those who oppose gay adoption. They seem genuine, caring, considerate.

This is the effect of the picture, because this is the purpose of the picture. Everything about it is designed to bypass the natural caution of the modern democratic, liberal, diverse, inclusive mind. It is meant to signal a whole constellation of ideas and values and feelings to the viewers, and to disarm them at the same time.

I’m sure you can imagine the types of conversations these men have routinely been involved in: justifying how they deserve the right to adopt, how the idea that they will be unfit parents is discriminatory, how anyone who criticizes them is a bigot and homophobic. They are probably perfectly “normal” in their everyday interactions, active in social activism, taking a position of moral superiority to bigots, voting for Harris.

If you haven’t already seen the headline, here is the reveal:

Gay couple who showed off picture-perfect family gets 100 years in prison for horrific rape of adopted sons

William Zulock (left) and Zackary Zulock (right) will each spend their lives in prison after submitting guilty pleasWalton County Sheriff's Office

William worked in government, Zachary in banking. They adopted the two boys from a Christian special-needs agency and proceeded to rape and pimp them out to a pedophile ring, distributing pornographic images of them in the process:

The couple were regularly forcing the boys to have sex with them, and would film the abuse to make pedophilic pornography.

Evidence showed they even bragged about the abuse to twisted friends, with one telling police Zachary once sent a Snapchat message reading “I’m going to f–k my son tonight. Stand by,” along with images of the boy being abused.

And they allegedly used social media to pimp the boys out to at least two men in a depraved local pedophile sex ring.

The couple was arrested in 2022 after an alleged member of the ring was caught downloading child porn, and he told the investigators how the Zulocks were making porn with young boys living in their house.

Both Zulocks plead guilty to charges of aggravated child molestation, aggravated sodomy, sexual exploitation of children.

Based on these details, I’m convinced the Zulocks are high-functioning psychopaths—dark personalities. It’s just the icing on the cake that they worked in government and banking. They are predatory, sadistic, brazen, have a low regard for laws and moral codes, no sexual boundaries, and actively cultivate a facade of “normal.” We can safely assume they are chameleon-like, dishonest, and manipulative. And if they have this many predatory features, they probably have the rest of them; they are probably controlling, self-entitled, vengeful, callous, unremorseful, and lacking in authentic emotion.

They no doubt used all the typical predatory tactics to groom their adopted boys and pull the wool over the eyes of their neighbors and acquaintances. These would include intimidation, isolation, projection, creating a contrived sense of connection, pretending to be the victim, controlling information, degrading and disempowering, ingratiation, and coercion. I would not be surprised if they even managed to convince some old-fashioned conservatives that they were some of the “good” gays. In fact, they are simply monsters.

If the lead image tells us anything it is that “perfect normality” is often a guise for the darkest evil. Perhaps that perfection itself should be a red flag. It’s too much. I’m at the point where the more obvious and explicit someone’s signaling about social issues is, the less I trust them. Like Lobaczewski described, the most ideologically minded people are usually that way for two reasons: 1) to coerce others into affirming that they are in fact “normal” when they are anything but, and 2) to give themselves a framework in which they can see themselves as the normal ones. They want to create a world where they are normal and everyone else (the majority) is a deviant. Normality is oppression. I discussed this idea in more depth last year:

The virtue signaling that is on display in those social media posts by the Zulocks is not an innocent statement of their beliefs. It is a mask and a bludgeon. The implied ideology’s purpose is to reform your mind so that you will create the world in which they are “free” to rape children, a world of true diversity, equity, and inclusion.

And it’s not just the woke left.

Christopher Brunet

recently went scorched earth on Nick Fuentes’s “Groypers,” exposing how many of them post approvingly about pedophilia and child-rape.¹

And while the ideas for this article were percolating, then came a third example: the Rotherham “grooming” (i.e. child rape) gangs of the UK. Apparently the court transcripts of this decade-old (but decades’ long) scandal were recently released (or at least publicized), and it prompted a social media storm on X, with Elon Musk joining the fray. The details are horrible.

Charlie Peters, who produced a documentary on the scandal for GB News, calls it “the most appalling atrocity in modern British history.” His thread on X tells the story of how the scandal was covered up from its first major exposure in 2003. Some excerpts (with predatory attributes and tactics in bold):

The strategy of the groomers was to pose as a friend or a boyfriend. That’s why we call them grooming gangs. Then draw the girl into their social circle, with gifts and attention. They’d offer them drugs and alcohol. And then they’d abuse them. Threats were used - against them or their family - to control them. And then they’d be passed around the whole gang to abuse.

In many cases the abuse went beyond rape into sadism. Reading the testimony, attending the trials, speaking to survivors... sometimes, it is truly harrowing. Don't read on if you find this too difficult. Gang rape, anal pumps, beatings, girls being ‘marked’ with the initials of their abusers. Broken bottles being shoved into them. Girls being doused with petrol. Stabbings. Thrashings. Fake executions. Real executions. Pure and total depravity. Often the girls were called white whores and white slags.

Two stories that capture this level of sadism:

• Mum’s anguish 15 years after her daughter was ‘cut up and mixed into kebabs by grooming gang’ [at least, that’s what one of the rapists claimed]

• 15-year-old Rochdale grooming gang victim who died after being injected with heroin: How Victoria Agoglia was repeatedly ignored despite telling police she was being abused, raped and plied with drugs by predatory pedophiles

What was the response? Guy Dampier summarizes some excerpts from Jayne Senior’s book:

Even in the 1990s, children’s homes had problems with Asian men in taxis preying on girls. The police did nothing.

Early efforts to alert the authorities led to them being told that collecting info on potential abusers breached their “human rights”.

Jayne says some Asian men had no respect for white girls but mentions a case of an Asian girl who was abused by a group who invited their brothers, uncles, and cousins to abuse her too. An Asian social worker said the girl could have avoided being abused if only she “dressed more appropriately”.

Confronted with all these cases, the social workers at Risky Business started collecting information. But when they noted the abusers were almost all Asian they were accused of being racist.

“Jessica” was in foster care, even though her carer invited her abuser to tea. When her father tried to rescue her from the house where she was being abused, he made a racist comment. The police came and arrested him and an intoxicated, semi-naked, 14 year old “Jessica” but not the abusers. “Jessica” said that her abusers regularly used the “race card” against the police. [The same, or a similar, story here.]

A Home Office researcher worked with Risky Business to map the rape gangs but one morning the team found the office had been broken into. Files had gone missing, the password protected computer had been accessed, and minutes tampered with. The culprits have never been found. The researcher was told by senior management never again to refer to Asian men running the rape gangs and was sent on a two-day ethnicity and diversity training course. The researcher was pulled over by the police while driving her car. They told her that “people” knew where she lived. One day Jayne was told by a police officer to check that her tyres were in good condition and that she had car insurance. In retrospect, it was a threat.

A rape gang beat two girls so badly they required the hospital but because the girls used racist language the police focused on them. The abusers weren’t arrested. The same abusers later broke into a house to threaten a 7 year old whose sister they thought might talk to the police.

Similarly:

A 12-year-old British girl is assaulted by an Asian man and goes to the police late at night. They turn her away. She’s abducted outside the police station and gang-r*ped by a group of Asian men, and then, when they release her, another group of Asian men r*pes her.

From Peters’s summary:

The government stepped in and commissioned social worker Alexis Jay to hold an inquiry. She found that this wasn’t about a few girls. She estimated that between 1997 and 2013, 1,400 children had been abused [just in Rotherham, other towns had similar numbers]. This was a conservative estimate. Almost all the victims were white, most of the abusers were Pakistani. And that’s despite them only making up just 5% of the town. … Pakistani British councillors had wielded unusual power, and they had used it to head off concerns. People who tried to raise concerns were silenced with bogus accusations of racism.

The parents attempting to intervene or bring their daughters’ abuse to the attention of the authorities were often themselves threatened with arrest or actually arrested.

When the police learned that gangs were approaching children at school gates, they hid the information from parents in case it led to ‘community tensions’.

A senior police officer admitted that his force ignored the sexual abuse of girls by Pakistani grooming gangs for decades because it was afraid of increasing “racial tensions” …

In 2013, two years after The Times first reported on grooming in Rotherham, Dr Ella Cockbain published “Grooming and the ‘Asian sex gang predator’”, in which she described Asian grooming gangs as a ‘moral panic’.

The Telegraph: The child victims of rape were denied justice and protection from the state to preserve the image of a successful multicultural society.

Or, as British historian Tom Holland put it on X: “The true nightmare of #Rotherham is that the motives of those who turned a blind eye, however monstrous the consequences, were indeed noble.” He clarified that not wanting to “give succour to racism against a minority” was the principle he had in mind. An anon account replied aptly:

This was hushed up for decades by law enforcement and media, because the high status sensible position held by the entire Bri’ish chatterer class is that we need to consider if it was a fair trade off in the fight against Racism™

What explains this response? Holland is actually a prime example. “Anti-racism” has turned his mind to pudding. Lobaczewski calls it “substitution and selection of premises” or “conversive thinking.” Holland, and everyone who shares this mode of thought, seemingly can’t actually think outside the empty slogans of his political class to see the common sense truth: race be damned, every single one of these sadistic monsters should have been arrested for life or sent back to Pakistan for them to deal with. (I would add “executed” to that list, but the UK doesn’t have the death penalty.)

Whatever selection criteria has been used to bring this group of men over, whose rate of prosecution for sexual offenses is orders of magnitude higher than the native British population, it’s clear Pakistan didn’t send their best. Either the region they come from has a statistically higher number of sexually predatory psychopaths, or something about the criteria disproportionally selects for such predators. Either way, the obvious response is to remove them by any means necessary. Anything less is insanity.

What can we conclude when we see British authorities ignoring mass child rape and arresting people for their social media posts? Whenever you see an institution ignoring big problems to focus on trivial ones, this is an indication that incompetence is rife within it, with the “over-promotion” of morons who lack the aptitude to deal with bigger problems.

The steadfast refusal simply to acknowledge the truth and to do something about it, however, are themselves signs of something darker and more dangerous than mere conversive thinking and incompetence. After all, child rape is one of those crimes most likely to inspire the types of feelings that result in lynchings. It’s not the type of thing ordinary people brush off because of their other “noble” principles. Even other criminals hate pedophiles.

No, this problem requites the battle axe: Incompetence breeds malevolence, and malevolence encourages incompetence. REN sets the scene:

The uncomfortable truth, as I concluded in an essay I wrote about the grooming gangs for @theammind, is that maybe the purpose of the system really is what it does. The British government, judiciary, police and media all collude together to enable the mass r*pe and sexual trafficking of white working-class girls—so maybe that’s not just a side effect of “multiculturalism.” Maybe it’s the point.

Maybe they’re in on it.

Maybe the reason the BBC produced a documentary called “The Fake Grooming Scandal” is the same reason they covered up Jimmy Savile.

Here’s another anon’s take: “Honestly, it wouldn’t even surprise me if these grooming gangs were just another cog in the machine, funneling children to people like Savile.”

Maybe it’s the same reason why “PM Keir Starmer is ordering Labour MPs to block a national inquiry into the rape gangs plaguing the United Kingdom.” And why Parliament did just that, voting 364-111 against opening an inquiry. As

John Carter

put it:

… an inquiry will probably demonstrate that this complicity goes all the way from the local constabulary through the local council up to the present occupant of 10 Downing Street, involving a de facto “whole of society” effort encompassing law enforcement, social services, the judiciary, the education system, academia, and journalism, with the intention of preventing investigation, prosecution, and publicization.

Not only did they not want to do anything about the migrant rape gangs, they didn’t want the public to know about them, and to the extent that they couldn’t keep the public from finding out about them, they were intent on gaslighting the public about the actual extent of these atrocities.

I think the reason is simple. They won’t do anything about it because they are also predators.

1. If we’re speaking about red flags, Nick’s mustache and permanent smirk should be added to the list.