Article by MRDA. The best analysis yet of the London riots.
When folk get angry, why do they always piss on their own doorstep? Westminster is only a bus ride away.
– Tunnocks, Guardian Reader.
But this I counsel you, my friends: Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful…And when they call themselves the good and the just, do not forget that they would be pharisees, if only they had—power.
– Friedrich Nietzsche
It took only two bullets to rupture the relative calm of a whole country…
…and,more than three weeks later, the wound remains sore and exposed.
However I won’t delve too deeply into the circumstances surrounding Mark Duggan’s fatal shooting by the Boys in Blue; nor those of the ensuing protest, two days later. Much remains to be clarified over those two occurrences: did Duggan unwittingly commit “suicide-by-cop”, or receive a summary execution ala Jean Charles de Menezes? Did the police go on to batter a peaceful protestor, or a pugilist? The little that has come to light hardly sheds any in return.
Still, I will spout off a few paragraphs concerning the now-infamous riots that springboarded off of those events…
Even with my anti-state sympathies, I don’t buy Darcus Howe’s romantic rationale of the riots as some sort of “insurrection” against state oppression; in fact, were I in the boots of a Syrian insurrectionist, I’d be pretty fucking pissed-off to be compared to such pointlessly destructive herd-animals. Perhaps if the rioters focused their fury on the swine of the state, he, and the others who’ve expressed similar sentiments, might have a leg to stand on; as it rests, the only liberation that took place involved either TVs ‘n’ trainers from retail parks, or PSPs from student backpacks. Similarly,beyond a single Brummie police station, the only establishments I recall going up in smoke belonged to those living and working amidst (most of) the rioters.
Pauline Pearce, the “Hackney heroine”, saw what many handholding bleeding-hearts failed to: predation, not principle, powered the riots.
With all that said, it must mean the police(wo)man is my friend, right?
Even if Plod-worship were my thing, I’d find my faith sorely tested by their (lack of ) reaction to the blatant “dutty teef” behaviour unfolding before their eyes; the sight of swine standing inches away from the criminals they’re contracted to capture still stands as one of the more memorable visuals from last week’s excitement. It fell to various local community squads, of assorted ancestries, to protect themselves from plunder, and, barring the Muslims mowed-down in Birmingham, they made a decent fist of keeping the cunts at bay. Had these vigorous vigilantes packed the (fire)power of their Korean cousins in the L.A. Riots, perhaps the rout would’ve been routed a lot sooner.
As it stands, their making-do with clubs and scythes proved enough to provoke a squeal from the state’s sows, with the Met.’s Steve Kavanagh decrying the self-defence squads for having the audacity to protect what’s theirs. The message sounds loud ‘n’ clear: threaten the state’s monopoly on violence and “the police [will have to] go and do the vigilantes as well as the other problems they’ve got”.
I must admit, I find the concept of “anarcho-tyranny”, coined by paleocon scribe Sam Francis, describes this state of affairs perfectly; the unspoken police policy of laissez-faire toward the rioters, and zero-tolerance toward the riot-intolerant, strikes me as a sterling example of a system that “criminalize[s] the innocent and ignore[s] real criminals”. If they caught, say, some bloke defending his home from arson with a show of force, it wouldn’t surprise me if they treated him to a Rodney King-style baton party (with the would-be firestarter filming it on his cameraphone).
Speaking of paleocon concerns, I’ve read and seen quite a bit of commentary touching on the place of race in this firestorm. If it wasn’t multiculturalists and racial nationalists playing Manichean games with their favoured ‘n’ disfavoured groups, it was historians offering up sloppily-worded critiques reeking of essentialism. On top of that were played-out Planet of the Apes jibes, Leftist smears on white self-defence squads, reporters PC-policing eyewitnesses, and the odd “Enoch was right” comment calling for the deportation of (British-born) black rioters. Yet, for all the race-baiting and theorizing, I noticed a distinct lack of on-the-ground representation from the race-nationalist contingent. In the advent of civil unrest, why didn’t the BNP step up to defend the land they (claim to) love? Why did Nick Griffin
Were I an Anglo-racialist, I’d be very, very wary of their sincerity; unfortunately for Griffin and co, it seems some in the milieu picked up on their poor show…
“We need a strong BNP” I hear some naive folks say… really? The party’s only response this week was to send out a begging text ‘LONDON BURNING …DONATE £3, DONATE, DONATE, DONATE!’
While British citizens fleeing from burning buildings and our major cities are engulfed in lawlessness the so-called big boys of nationalism can only offer our beleaguered people the opportunity to donate £3 to their leaky coffers !
What an utter disgrace and shameful stunt that should now convince even the most loyal of what the real motivation of the party leaders is these days.
As the dust settled, pundits and politicos searched for more scapegoats to slaughter. A variety of voices volunteered their reasons for the riots, which included, amongst others: consumerism; the erosion of benefits; the availability of benefits; hooded clothing; single-parent families; a lack of belief in the Biblical bogeyman; and the reality of moral relativism. We even had Noel Gallagher, and Jo fucking Frost—the sodding Supernanny—blaming it on that well-worn bugbear of busybody breeders: video games!
However, Parasite-in-Power, David Cameron, outdid Frost in the laughability stakes; fresh from frolicking in Tuscany on taxpayer money whilst London burned, he overcompensated with this pharasisical pearl…
It is a complete lack of responsibility in parts of our society, people allowed to feel the world owes them something, that their rights outweigh their responsibilities and their actions do not have consequences.
I wonder: was he on about “parts of society” in Wood Green, or Westminster?
DAVID CAMERON faced an internal inquiry yesterday into claims he “maxed out” his second home expenses.
The Tory leader took out a £350,000 taxpayer-funded mortgage and then paid off a £75,000 loan soon afterwards.
The financial juggling may have cost taxpayers as much as £22,000.
Is that a mote I see in your eye, Davey-boy?
In any case, Cameron claimed to have just the antidote to remedy the moral malady he diagnosed: more swine on the streets; fussing in familial affairs; stupid sentencing; and Mubarak–style clampdowns on communication (which thankfully got taken offline, a few days back). It all amounts to a concoction that too many of the electorate seem eager to gulp down, going by their endorsements of measures that jail folk for posting dumb shit on Facebook, and punish parents for the sins of their spawn.
This whole situation strikes me as a sterling example of what I call the Clockwork Orange dilemma: much like Alex, that story’s protagonist, the citizenry finds itself presented with a “choice” between the “cancer” of crime and the “cure” of constraint—the id and the superego, in Freudspiel.
Also, as in said story, the opposed sides differ only on a superficial level. I struggle to see the difference between some chancer stealing shirts from Next, and state stooges stealing someone’s liberty for organising a waterfight via Blackberry. Similarly, the herd instinct seems to tie together the rioters and the law-abiding folk who bay for their blood. Unrecognized by most, such underlying binds work to keep the ostensible antagonists locked in a game of mutual reinforcement; indeed, one could argue these rioters ultimately turned out to be the best friends Cameron and his cronies ever had. Own goal!
That said, I do note one difference between the law-fearing and the looters: the latter at least make use of their own claws. As Guardian-reader Mark Kearney points out…
The irony is that though right wingers constantly talk about personal responsibility, right wing ideology truly revolves around the worship of and hence deference of responsibility to some ‘authority figure’ who will save the believer and other followers from their plight, lead their country to glory, etc. Right wingers truly desire a show of power to conceal their own personal sense of powerlessness.
In short, submission masquerading as “strength”.
Touch your toes, devotchkas: Big Daddy’s comin’ in!