Reading the Riot Act

Procrastibaker and myself discussed this topic at length, this is pretty much what we arrived at over the course of that Skype conversation.

Early this month, the UK was hit by a serious wave of civil disobedience… rioting, if you will. My question today is: what are the root causes of this? And can we learn the lessons of the England riots to move our society onwards? There’s been a bit of caustic reactionary talk, which is worrying but good at the same time. I’ve spoken with a few very knowledgeable friends, and here’s what I’ve come up with.

I’ve a couple of things to say about it. Obviously, what happened in Tottenham, in Hackney, in Croydon and in Bristol and Manchester was beyond awful and despicable. Mindless, but based on a social malady that is blighting my generation. But there are further issues to consider. Does Britain have a serious attitude problem?

First, let’s deal with the elephant in the living room: David Starkey. He’s been much derided by making comments about the culture in this country, saying things like

“The whites have become black…” (in reference to the cultural shift in this country towards a black-originating “gangsta” culture; not a literal reverse-Michael Jackson effect.

At which point, the Left/liberal media exploded. What I find most worrying is the fact that in Britain, any attempt to discuss topics like race and immigration will absolutely inevitably be shot down as “racist”, even if the remarks – as Starkey’s were – are not racist. It’s as if the rest of the conversation is ignored, all points disregarded and the person making the points smeared unilaterally and unquestionably as racist and not to be listened to. Which is a terrible mistake to make. It’s almost as if liberals are scared to discuss race or immigration. As if they have something to hide. Once the “racism” card is played, all meaningful conversation is shut down. If you like, the debate that will absolutely happen is always in grave danger of violating Godwin’s law.

There is an “accepted doctrine” in this country, and that is that multiculturalism is never to be questioned, and immigration or race issues never to be mentioned. To do that would violate the liberal doctrine in the UK and whoever dares to do so becomes Nick Griffin. There is no shade of grey. Whatever salient or pertinent point you had made is discarded. Because you are a racist. End of story.

The absolute cardinal sin is to mention Enoch Powell or his famous Rivers of Blood speech. Because to do that elevates you out of the realms of a mere racist. You’re in ultra-right-wing-xenophobic-white-supremacist-hood-wearing-monster territory, the sort who is to be thrown into a novelty-sized blender, whose views are never to be considered as valuable or worthy no matter what the subject. You become a pariah for speaking your mind against the norm. Your views will be censored.

Whatever David Starkey said, and whether his points were valid or stupid is up to the individual to decide. But what cannot ever be suppressed is his right to make them. That is an unassailable pillar of our society. To try to censor their views because they do not agree with a mystical “liberal doctrine” we’ve lived according to for so long we’ve forgotten anything else isn’t liberal at all. If you ask me, it sounds like something Hitler would do.

And there I go, breaking Godwin’s law myself.

I’ve mentioned my views on immigration and race ages ago, but let’s redux: I’m absolutely not opposed to people coming to this country if they’ve the intention of becoming hardworking, decent members of our society. Fine. But they must at least learn the language; I consider that the bare minimum integration required. We must also turn the tap down on the tidal wave of immigration; not because Britain is “full”, but because we must be able to adequately scale and improve public services, utilities and housing in proportion to any population movements. It’s common sense.

And not racist.

But previous government’s policies are not helping. The EU, the hush-down of any proper debate on immigration by the main left-of-centre political parties, it’s not good.

There is, it would seem a “gangsta” culture where violence is a tolerated form of “justice” for any squabble, no matter how petty. There is a “law of the street”, where gangs “own” tracts of towns and cities, and their only response to the justified, factual assertion    that they’re everyone’s streets would be to beat the living daylights out of this person. Why is that? Why is there a sense of “self-entitlement”, where these gangs, and the members therein seem to be “entitled” to “respect” from the “establishment”? Surely to gain respect, you have to earn it, and by smashing up your own neighbourhood, whether that be in some ignorant way of “getting your taxes back” (surely you have to pay them first? Or is my logic here misplaced and unwelcome?). It’s always someone else’s fault.

There is a sense of entitlement also that these people seem compelled to demand benefits. Why? After, I’d say, a couple of generations of being naturalised in Britain, people might feel naturalised enough to claim the state’s handouts, but not enough to integrate into society proper and, to use Starkey’s vernacular, “act white”. This I think is bizarre and back-to front. Britain has a terrible benefits culture as it is, where everyone is conditioned (13 years of Labour giveaways didn’t help) to expect something for nothing. Young people have grown up knowing nothing else. To blame the Tories would be short-sighted. There is a poor work ethic in large parts of Britain. People don’t want to work, and that’s a tragedy. It doesn’t matter how many youth clubs you build for these people, they’re not interested. They’re so used to laying about on the street corner they wouldn’t do anything else.

There is, I’d say, a deep sense of anti-intellectualism in the youth of Britain. If you don’t fall into a predictable, social “mould” you’re considered weird or strange, and aren’t to be trusted or tolerated. That’s a shame. It kills me, in a way, to see young people breaking into Footlocker or JD Sports but not Waterstones the book shop. People don’t read, anyway, and for that, I pity them. But that’s a tale for another day.