Thursday, 11 August 2011

What to do?

The public feels it no longer has the right to interfere.
Yob Nation
Francis Gilbert
Regarding the riots across England, I think this sums it up best: This is what autonomous individualism looks like in the end.  Since the 1960s, Britain has been subjected to a relentless campaign to strip the country of its institutions, its history, its morals, its religion and its very identity.  Generations of children have been taught that their country is wicked, that their society is worthless, their history shameful.  They've been told there is no right or wrong save what they decide is so.  For an entire class of society the family has been all but destroyed and mothers gave birth to a generation of bastards who never even knew their fathers. Industry has been punished.  Decency derided.  Patriotism mocked.  Deference abolished.  Chastity forgotten.  All authority over them renounced.  All of this, mind you, in the  bosom of a cradle to grave welfare state that ensures that they never need to work a day in their lives.  And what have they been left with?  A perverted, feral sense of individualism.  Not the individualism of a free man under the law and a being created in God's image, but of a brute answerable to no one and nothing.  This wave of looting and burning isn't surprising. We have "children" (some middle aged) who have a massive sense of entitlement, no regard for law,  no respect for authority, are bone idle and believe that they have a right to anything they can get away with.  And now that the police have shown themselves ineffectual, the government spineless and the populace disarmed, they know they can literally get away with murder.  And that is what Britain is bankrupting itself for;  to support an underclass of parasitic yahoos whose idea of relieving boredom is to rob and burn those few left who are productive.  As for second-generation immigrants who by all accounts made up a staggering percentage of the looters, it's like they've been handed the cultural list and only picked up the worst traits of their hosts.  And the females?  As the father of a little girl, I can only weep at how they have been sacrificed at an altar more terrible than Baal's.

Back in the 1970s,  I recall a story I read in Analog magazine ("Generation Gaps", I think) about a 21st century Earth where the older generation was fleeing to the Moon to escape from a world ruled by hippies who had rebuilt society to their hedonistic liking.   The final paragraphs of the story were chilling as the refugees' "children" begged for help as their children in turn adopted cannibalism and vampirism as the newest fad and rose against them in bloody rebellion.  It was meant as satire, but watching the videos over the last few days, I'm not so sure.

My wife, who isn't given to such things, pronounced that if Britain cannot rise to this occasion, then it is doomed.  I can't help but agree with her, but who have we to deal with this?  An ineffectual Political Class that hasn't a clue how the real world works and a police force that is hamstrung by insane, contradictory directives that damn them whatever they do.  Watching Cameron et al posturing, acting tough, finger pointing, contradicting one another and desperately hoping that this will all go away is nothing less than sickening for, indeed, that is exactly what they are hoping will happen.  The idea that the deadly fruits of the welfare state have finally ripened and begun to fall doesn't occur to them.

That's looking at it at its simplest.  This isn't a pressure cooker on the verge of exploding.  Add in the foreign tyranny of the EU, the economic crisis, the immigration crisis and the ever-pressing threat of Jihad and you've got a whole warehouse full of pressure cookers next door to a depot load of Semtex, a tanker of petrol and an atomic missile silo.

It also doesn't help that the law abiding have been so thoroughly betrayed.  In the 20th century, the state and the people made a compact.  In return for disarming, the state promised to protect the people.  Since the British are a singularly law-abiding people and largely supported their institutions (British criminals were once notorious for their patriotism), this worked.  But when the rot of the welfare state mingled with the cultural poison of the 1960s, that respect faded and the police were emasculated.  By the turn of the century, the only ones who had reason to fear the law were the ones who it supposedly existed to protect.  Want to see swift justice? Ask a policeman if he knows his horse is gay. The people, in turn, were laid naked before the wolves bred over the past forty odd years.

Things have to change and quickly.  How?  I don't know.  It doesn't mean the Tories out and Labour in.  All three main parties are as bad as the other.  It means rejecting all of them and dismantling this insular, self-regarding, corrupt Political Class on all levels of government.  It means very real, basic reform that this country hasn't seen since 1688.  It means undoing decades of deliberate destruction and the rediscovery of who we are.  It's to go so far back that we have to go to every old folks home, look the War generation in the eye and apologise to them for what we've done to their country. 

But that's for tomorrow.  Today we have to look at the lessons we've learned.

The first lesson?  Recognise that the police are the police, not social workers in funny clothes.  Their purpose is to catch criminals, prevent crime and keep the peace.  They are not tasked with "community cohesion"  or any of that bilge.  Nor are they the armed wing of the Guardian.  Their function is to be greeted by the law abiding with relief and the criminal classes with fear. It is not to go after respectable citizens and reeducate them in the proper way of thinking (That is, the Party line) while allowing the yobs to roam and despoil at will. 

1940 appeal.
The second lesson is to allow the citizenry to arm themselves again and to use their arms in self-defence.  No, better than that.  "Allow" makes that into a gift that the Party can take away from us.  Britain needs a Second Amendment.  Recognise the right to bear arms as inalienable, that an Englishman's home is his castle and that he has a right to defend himself.  Where I live in Washington State, law enforcement is in the form of a handful of sheriffs covering an area approximately that of Kent.  If someone is knocking on the door with an axe, you might as well order pizza after calling the fuzz because they'll take about as long to get here.  You'd think that it would be a looter's dream, but you'd be dead wrong.  So would the perp with the axe with the emphasis on "dead".  Something like 90 percent of houses here have guns and the owners aren't afraid to use them.   If a gang of Mexican banditos out of a Sam Peckinpah film stormed up the road on horseback with pistols blazing, I'd never see them from my house because they'd be cut down before they crested the first hill.  That is what we call a deterrent.

The third lesson is to acknowledge the horrible damage done to British society since the foul revolution of 1968.  Admit that the Political Class that replaced the old Establishment is a rotten oligarchy and that the horrors inflicted by them on our morals and our institutions in the name of "reform" and "modernity" have resulted in (among other things) a feral underclass that is as dangerous as it it useless.  And that the experiment of mass immigration, moral relativism and multiculturalism is an abject failure. Does that mean turning back the clock?  It blasted well does.  As G K Chesterton said, "Turning back the clock is the sensible and progressive thing to do when it starts keeping the wrong time".

The clock isn't just keeping the wrong time, some yob has set fire to it.

12 comments:

eon said...

Bravo.

Britain has two choices. It can either, as you say, turn the clock back to a more civilized time (I'm thinking of the time when every gentleman and lady had a Webley Bulldog in their pocket or muff, and more importantly knew how to use it)- or the clock will turn back of its own accord, to a much earlier time.

At best, about 1645. At worst, about the time of Lindesfarne.

The U.S. may find itself facing the same choice very soon. Fortunately, we at least already have our Bulldogs, as you've stated.

As for the ruling classes in both nations, they have a choice, too. Their best one is to quietly fade away.

Failing that, if they continue their present course, a bullying quest for Utopia and power at all costs (to us), and continuing to blame us for all the ills we have suffered as a result of their quest, I think jail is an appropriate remedy, as P.J. O'Rourke once observed.

At some point, even limitless ambition coupled with boundless stupidity must have a price. To be paid - finally- by the ambitious and stupid, as opposed to everybody else, who have to live with the consequences of their delusions.


cheers

eon

Sergej said...

So, let's say we arm the Brits. Do you think it will do any good? I don't ask this as a rhetorical question. It is said that even a mouse will fight when cornered, but humans are not mice. Humans are capable of the courage to charge a machine gun, but also of being stuck in indecision about whether to pull the trigger until it is much too late.

If the answer to my question is still yes, then the place will pull through. If not... I would guess a period of anarchy like the one the former USSR saw after the collapse and before Putin. In the best case. In a worse case... legend has it that Rurik gained Ladoga because all the men were out of town raiding, so the viking walked in and declared himself king.

I hope Britain's still got enough of the old spirit to recover.

David said...

Guns will definitely help. I live in a very well armed community and it is very safe and very polite. In Britain, the covenant between rulers and ruled is now broken and the people have the right to defend themselves. Armaments up to and including assault weapons combined with carry/conceal permits will prevent anything like this happening again.

Also, an armed populace is not only a deterrent to the criminal, it's a deterrent to the state. As one Second Amendment campaigner in the US said to a congresswoman a few months back, "The Second Amendment is meant to protect us from you".

eon said...

Also, in my personal experience, a looting mob is composed primarily of those who like to beat up targets weaker than themselves. They are not composed of particularly courageous individuals- just thugs and punks out for their definition of a good time at everyone else's expense. They tend to stop and think twice when shown even a sidearm.

In one case, an officer with a 1911 .45 faced down a mob of about 40 or so would-be Che' types during the arrest of a Molotov cocktail enthusiast. When the bomb thrower exhorted the mob to free him in the name of the "Glorious People's Revolution", saying "He only has eight shots", the officer responded, "Right. Which eight of you want to be first?"

The answer turned out to be, none of the 40 or so.

(Athens, OH, "Devil's Night", 1977.)

A repeating shotgun with an extended magazine makes an even bigger impression. Especially when you rack the action. (Personal experience.)

This is why we call firearms "force multipliers". And half the time, you never need to pull the trigger. Just remember that you need to be ready to do so. Mobs can sense a bluff, and smell fear nearly as well as a Border Collie can smell a bunny.

cheers

eon

Ironmistress said...

As I have stated, the only realistic alternative scenario to save the Western civilization is falling into Fascism. Perhaps a military dictatorship will do just as well.

I wish to be out at the oceans when it finally happens.

Ironmistress said...

Guns will definitely help. I live in a very well armed community and it is very safe and very polite.

Britain was full of guns - both legal and illegal - just after the WWII. Was it any safer place than today? If the statistics are to believed, no.

The crime in any Western countries has never been higher than after the war when men returning from war who had learnt to kill, maim and hurt in the war and who had too much spare time, too much alcohol and too little meaningful things to do, turned on crime.

Plus then those yobbos, punks and dregs of the youth who had access on firearms at will, and which were used not only on assaults and other crimes, but gang fighting as well. My image is that post-WWII Britain resembled pretty much prohibition-era Chicago. The only reason why Germany didn't fall into complete anarchy was that it a) was under martial law and b) the Allied were clever enough to both disarm Germans and give then meaningful jobs.

In the end Derek Bentley got hanged from a crime he did not commit but which a legal loophole made possible to hang him for.

In Britain, the covenant between rulers and ruled is now broken and the people have the right to defend themselves. Armaments up to and including assault weapons combined with carry/conceal permits will prevent anything like this happening again.

Given to the lessons of Britain immediately after WWII, I would not be so sure about that.

The situation was exactly the same in all European countries, not only Britain. Finland likewise experienced the highest resurgence of violent crime - felonies, murders, robberies, rape - immediately after WWII. And God only knows how many pistols and revolvers still languish in Finnish cupboards, attics, garages and hideouts.

Besides that, knives are better than handguns in close quarters. At 10 m distance, a gunman has a slight edge over a knifeman. At 5 m distance, the knifeman has the edge. At 3 m and less, the knifeman will almost always win. It usually is a good idea to bring a knife in a gun fight, as most punks are really poor shots. A slightly curved fish filleting knife is one of the best anti-human weapons ever come by.

David said...

Ironmistress: I don't know where you're getting your statistics from, but the official records show a marked decline in violent crime in Britain until 1961. In fact, the crime rate tallies very nicely with the rise of the welfare state, social engineering, mass immigration, etc.

David said...

And, yes, gun control.

Ironmistress said...

Here. Crime rates peaked immediately after the war. They began to sink down around 1950 once the war veterans either managed to find meaningful life (i.e. got jobs, married and had children) or drank themselves to death. That is an universal phenomenon and happens everywhere after each war.

They again began to rise in the 1960s because of two reasons. First, crime is the pastime of young men, and the baby boomers became adult at that time. The second was reckless immigration, which caused a surplus population of idle young men - which usually came from very warlike, lawless or tribal populations. They then rose until 1992 when they again began to sink.

A plethora of unemployed, single and desperate men with no prospects of work, studies or family is a sure-fire recipe of a disaster. Welfare will dampen the effect to some extent, but with no welfare - and no jobs available and no hope of better future - the situation is like a powder keg looking for a spark. Just look at the Arab countries earlier this year.

What is the solution? The first and foremost solution is to prevent such dangerous critical mass of idle young males from emerging at the first place. Since jobs are becoming more and more scarce, the Western world has been pretty much deindustrializing since the 1980s, all the production jobs are being outsourced to cheap labour cost countries and living labour is needed all the time less, the focus should be aimed on preventative means. Forced abortions of male fetuses, sterilizations, sterilizations, immigration quotas for females only and making childbirth as licence issues are some of the means.

Ironmistress said...

Oh, the link doesn't work. Here again: http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf

David said...

Are we reading the same statistics here? These are the ones I used and they distinctly show a drop in indictable offences.

As to forced abortions, sterilisations and licensing reproduction; no. I will assume that this was meant rhetorically and not as a serious proposition. Eugenics is nothing to joke about.

Jason said...

Just finished reading _Generation Gaps_. Quite the horrific story, and while somewhat exaggerated, not entirely off the mark unfortunately.

While I'm not a supporter of forced eugenics, I'm quite sympathetic to the idea that any able-bodied person of breeding age who is dependent of taxpayer handouts should not be allowed to reproduce. Give them a choic: the dole and sterilization, or retained fertility and no money from the state.