“We should expect tyranny to result from democracy, the most savage subjection from an excess of liberty”.

-Plato, Republic, Book VIII, 564 a

This December, as many Americans attended to their rituals of shopping, spectator sports and celebrity voyeurism, the 2012 fiscal year’s National Defense Authorization Act was passed by the U.S. Congress. It has now been signed into law by President Obama. This legislation has attracted some controversy, if characteristically muted, thanks to one of its provisions in particular. The U.S. military will be granted the power to detain citizens on the soil of the Land of the Free for indefinite periods of time. All that’s needed to do away with due process is the suspicion of involvement with “terrorism,” an activity elastically defined[1].

Well-meaning commentators have expressed some shock at the passage of an act that enables martial law and interminable vacations to Guantanamo. America was founded on the concept of inalienable rights! Critics and opponents of the liberal order, however, are in no way surprised at this development, for it was decades in the making. With the NDAA, our policy elites have appropriated a mask of legality to manage the chaos they themselves engineered. The rights once upheld as inalienable were ultimately a fanciful construct, a fiction employed in the service of enlightened government.

As Western democracy evolves and extends its power across the world, its ascendance must be secured and made absolute. Serious resistance abroad and at home will surely be crushed. With hearty approval of the new act, Senator Lindsey Graham remarked that America had now assumed its place as a segment of a much larger battlefield for freedom. Old fairy tales of civic virtue have outlived their usefulness in an age of globalism; the new narrative of universal terror assures us liberty and equality forever. A CIA officer-turned-security consultant explains the need for ubiquitous surveillance and government intrusion into all spheres of life:

If we watch – in the United States, in Germany, Sweden, the U.K. – things are constantly at a low boil and we always need to be on our guard…This can take place just about anywhere.

Terror and tyranny are inevitable byproducts of democracy, the one legitimate form of rule permitted by Washington to the tribes of humanity. Our struggle for the rights of man must by necessity incur some casualties, but such bloodshed waters the tree of liberty. Tabulated (or not) as collateral damage, Pashtun villagers are ripped apart by Hellfire missiles launched by drones so that one day girls from that very community may go to an NGO-run school and learn about voting and contraception. Yet when a Pakistani who has taken U.S. citizenship attempts to blow up Times Square in revenge, no one in America’s political and media establishment seems the least bit curious as to his motives. The entire affair is written off as business as usual in the Open Society--after all, it could have taken place anywhere. This regime is the culmination of liberalism’s logic; it is what U.S. forces patrolling the Hindu Kush and all other corners of the earth defend. We fight them over there to invite them over here, for peace and unity in our world must first be enforced through universal war.

Language is always evolving, and the direction of a language’s evolution is a function of its users. In Jamaica this meant, first, the development of a creole by West African slaves after British rule in the 17^th century; and, secondly, with the island’s population being majority Black since the 1670s, said creole’s growing into an unofficial national language.

Because it was based on a White man’s language, and Whiteness had long been associated with high social status, Jamaican patois was traditionally looked down upon as a failure to attain the White Englishman’s educational standards.

This, however, is changing (at least in Jamaica), and linguists at the University of the West Indies in Kingston have been working on a translation of the Bible into Jamaican patois. The hope of supporters is officially to legitimise the creole as an authentic language in its own right.

The results are striking. What follows is from Luke’s Gospel—or, in patois, Jiizas—di buk we Luuk rait bout im:

Original: ‘And having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, highly favoured one, the Lord is with you: blessed are you among women.”’

Patois: ‘De angel go to Mary and say to ‘er, me have news we going to make you well ‘appy. God really, really, bless you and him a walk with you all de time.’

The BBC report on this development includes a film where a Jamaican cleric frames this in nationalist terms. His easy switch from patois to Standard English, from illiterate to literate English, as if they were different languages, is rather odd.

Jamaican patois’ literary pretensions may represent a more advanced stage in a development that has occurred in other former colonies.

In Singapore the local creole is known as Singlish. It is an accretion of words originating from English, Malay, Hokkien, Teochew, Cantonese, Tamil, Bengali, Punjabi, and, to a lesser extent, various other European, Indic, and Sinitic languages, with television-derived American and Australian slang thrown in for added global spice. Singlish is disglossic, meaning it has high (acrolectic) and low (basilectic) variants. The former is most similar to Standard English, the latter appears almost like a foreign language: compare ‘This person’s Singlish is very good’ with ‘Dis guy Singrish si beh zai sia.’

In Malaysia the English-based creole is called—somewhat appropriately—Manglish. The creole shares roots with Singlish, and West-coast Manglish is nearly identical to the former.

Closer to home, in the United Kingdom there is Hinglish (Hindi + English), which is spoken both in India and in the United Kingdom. Its usage in Britain is so widespread that some years ago Collin’s published a humorous dictionary, titled The Queen’s Hinglish, How to Speak Pukka.

Hinglish is not like Jamaican patois, Haitian creole, or Singlish, but operates more like Spanglish, with borrowed words thrown into the base language and occasionally rearranged grammar. Hinglish words include: airdash (travel by air), chaddis (underpants), chai (Indian tea), crore (10 million), dacoit (thief), desi (local), dicky (boot), gora (white person), jungli (uncouth), lakh (100,000), lumpen (thug), optical (spectacles), prepone (bring forward), stepney (spare tyre) and would-be (fiancé/e).

Sensing the rage of White citizens and the existential threat it poses to the status quo, British politicians have sought to keep the chanko stew in the multicultural pressure cooker from exploding through feinted acts of appeasement—purely cosmetic, if not outright deceptive, ‘changes’ in immigration policy. In the minds of many mainstream White politicians, immigration is inevitable, necessary, and will not fundamentally affect the power balance in the country. And in the minds of some such politicians, immigration might alter the outward complexion of the country, but will not change its fundamental values or institutions—Blacks and Asians will become ‘White’ inside. Thus, any rage coming from within the indigenous White majority (‘racism’ in the PC dictionary) is a nuisance that needs to be managed and controlled until ‘education’ and exposure eliminates it in time.

Yet, based on the experience of former colonies, a fundamental alteration of the ethnic and racial composition of the citizenry in the European territories now being colonised by settlers from Asia, Africa, an the Caribbean, will bring along with it the long-term decline of Standard English and the rise of creole variants, which, may in due course obtain official legitimation. In this sense, Jamaica may be affording us a preview of Europe’s future, rather than another emblem of the island’s further divergence from Britain and convergence with West Africa.

In this scenario, the traditional upper classes in Britain would gradually change complexion, becoming progressively Asian and Muslim. Whiteness retaining its link with high status would prescribe a period of mimesis, where the new upper class would initially use a variant of Standard English as a class demarcator. In time even this Standard English will likely be seen as an obsolete vestige from a superseded past under White hegemony. It will likely be said that ‘no one speaks like that anymore’, the same way that no American politician today sounds like Woodrow Wilson in 1912, William Taft before him, or William McKinley in 1896. The same way that the BBC abandoned Queen’s English, even a creolised form of our Standard English will give way to a full creole.

This is not to say that what we call Standard English would remain static in a scenario where Europeans regain control of their destiny. The various spelling reform efforts in English predate the era of mass immigration, and scientific and technological advances, along with the social structures and behaviours that they give rise to, are constantly adding terminology to our dictionaries. New words have legitimately entered the English language from non-Indo-European sources via, for example, American, South African, and Australian English. Language is and should be constantly evolving. The question here is how ours is likely to evolve, who it is that will influence its evolution, and for what reasons.

While we are on the topic of immigration and the sentiment it elicits among frustrated White folk everywhere, it is worth highlighting once again how the media reports collisions between communities.

Perhaps one of the most egregious recent example I have seen is a report on the Copenhagen Post, ‘Denmark’s leading source for news in English’.

Titled, ‘Fears of Vigilantism After Rape of Young Girl’, the report begins:

The rape of a ten-year-old has shocked the residents of a small town in Jutland, and led to fears residents would seek revenge against the suspect – a 16-year-old boy of Somalian descent.

A week ago last Saturday two girls were threatened at knife-point by a boy and led into a forest. While the nine-year-old girl managed to escape and sound the alarm, the ten-year-old was raped.

It took over a week for the police to make an arrest, and in the meantime the description of the culprit – an ‘African-looking’ male between the ages of 16 and 18 and with black curly hair – was circulated.

So far, so good, right? Mr. Stanner has reported the crime and identified the suspect, not neglecting to mention his race. Now let us examine how the rest of the article runs. The next sixteen paragraphs follow directly after the above three, without transition:

Some 40 percent of the town’s residents are immigrants and several boys and young men fit the description given by the girls. While the police began collecting evidence, rumours started circulating that groups of residents were looking to take matters into their own hands and young immigrant men were warned to stay indoors.

To help calm nerves, a meeting was held the following Tuesday in which a family member of one of the two girls urged residents to let the police do their job in apprehending the culprit.

One of those in attendance was Kaj Mortensen, the manager of a local housing association, who told the press that fears of a vigilante mob forming were overblown, though it was worth reminding residents of the consequences of vigilantism.

“It’s something we want to avoid, it’s the police who have to handle these things. We shouldn’t do anything ourselves,” Mortensen said. “Broadly speaking we discussed the need to talk to each other, regardless of which ethnicity you might have.”

While it seems residents did allow police to conduct their investigation in peace, a right-wing political organisation used the incident to spread their anti-Islamic agenda.

Twenty members of the Danish Defence League (DDL), were spotted in the nearby town of Herning on Thursday night on their way to Gullestrup, where the next day posters could be found declaring the town an ‘Sharia Free Zone’ and signed by the DDL.

The DDL admitted on its Facebook page to hanging the posters and called the act a ‘good effort’.

The group is tied to the British organisation English Defence League, which is made up largely of white males linked to the football hooligan community and who are responsible for violent anti-Islamic rallies across the country.

In a press release, the DDL declared it was prepared to take on the role of the police at times when they felt the Danish people were not being protected

“The Danish Defence League declares that we will take the streets in areas where the number of rapes are rising if the authorities in Denmark are not getting the situation under control. We take this position after the Danish police once again have shown that they either can’t or won’t – or don’t have the resources to – protect the Danish people from Muslim immigrants’ perverted desires.”

A 16-year-old was been arrested late last week after forensic evidence linked him to the crime. The police would not confirm what the evidence was but one report suggests his fingerprint was found on a condom packet lying close to the scene of the crime.

According to information obtained by the tabloid Ekstra Bladet, the 16-year-old had recently returned from a year in Somalia and had reportedly witnessed that country’s strife at close quarters.

Acquaintances of the suspect described how the experience has affected him.

“He was unrecognisable when he came home. He seemed hard and superficial and spoke very loudly, almost shouting all the time,” one source was quoted in Ekstra Bladet as saying.

The boy appeared in court last Saturday in a close door hearing.

He denies any involvement in the rape.

Interesting, is it not, how the report focuses entirely on worries about the feelings and safety of the immigrant residents, and spares not one word for the feelings of the 9-year old who was threatened with a knife, or of the 10-year-old girl who was raped at knifepoint, or of the families of these two girls, or of the Danish local residents who may be parents to young girls. The safety of local Danish girls does not fall under reporter Peter Stanner’s radar.

What does fall under his radar are the feelings of the young rapist thug. Some would want to point out that Mr. Stanner’s report is sympathetic to the rapist, for it spends five paragraphs attempting to, let us say, nuance, or add context, to the Somali youth’s despicable crime, so that readers may not rush to conclusions. It is the boy who is the real victim, not the girl who will be traumatised for the rest of her life. The villains are those irascible Danish barbarians living in the neighbourhood and of course the DDL.

We have seen ample evidence of how, for mainstream journalists, context is essential when attempting to understand attacks on White folk by coloured immigrants or their descendants, but wholly unimportant when attempting to understand the frustration of White folk who, Emma West or Darren Scully, decide they have had enough. For the likes of Mr. Stanner, the existence of the DDL has no context other than simple racism, and their reacting to this event is merely base opportunism, motivated by a mean-spirited desire to exploit an unfortunate incident for political gain. There is no legitimate reason to defend the Danish, of course.

When I came across the Daily Telegraph’s first report about Emma West’s cri de coeur aboard the Croydon tramlink, I was reluctant to comment for the reasons already outlined in Andy Nowicki’s latest blog.

However, the Telegraph report—since updated—did suggest to me that any mainstream media coverage, especially if it went viral, would be worth commenting upon, and therefore worth keeping an eye on for developments.

My instinct was not wrong.

Mainstream media reports since have predictably emphasised the shock of West’s fellow commuters and YouTube viewers as well as the illegality of West’s speech. The early Telegraph report, preceding West’s arrest, suggested she was motivated by irrational hatred and even that she may not be in full possession of her faculties:

During the footage the mother - who at times appears to slur her words - begins by ranting

Nabeela Zahir, a 29-year-old journalist based in London, writing for the The Huffington Post, has since chipped in, deploying a familiar double tactic. With her opening sentence, hardly neutral in tone, she telegraphs that expressing views critical of immigrants and immigration has no place in decent society:

The racist torrent of abuse that spewed out of the mouth of a woman travelling on a London tram has left many Brits horrified.

Further down, Zahir, who describes herself as ‘British Asian’, repeats the tired old cliché of White racial identity being a mental illness and paints a picture of her adopted country as being riddled with nasty racism.

It seems not to matter that she was able to obtain a full education in British universities, or that she has been able to find ample professional opportunities in her chosen career as a news producer, documentary film researcher, television co-host, assistant broadcast journalist, writer and contributor, sub-editor, and communications press officer, who has worked for Channel 4, Channel 4 News, Waddell Media, the BBC, and ITN, among others, as well been published by The Guardian and received a George Viner scholarship. According to her narrative, Britain’s nasty racism is everywhere, always, under the surface, not only in violent forms, but also in all manner of subtle forms, sometimes finding expression in socially acceptable discourse.

 This is more or less the message emanating from The Guardian, where Sunny Hundal, commentator on ‘British Asian’ identity politics and committed racial activist, who questions whether West should be arrested for expressing her views, but believes

there are still far too many Westminster commentators who think racism is a thing of the past

 and that West is a product of ‘the opinions of the rightwing press’ and its ‘biased reporting’.

The Mirror, a Left-wing tabloid, lays it thick with its biased reporting, broadcasting at full volume the message that West’s views are objectionable (highlights are mine):

Viewers disgusted at her comments brought it to the attention of the British Transport Police . . . Disbelieving viewers left comments on the video sharing website . . . One said: “She makes me furious”, while another posted: “So much hate, actually ashamed to be British.” … The woman begins her x-rated outburst . . . She then ignores a polite request from a second traveller to stop swearing in front of the children on the tram. And the mum's sickening rant then goes into overdrive . . .

None of the coverage herein cited, and least of all the self-serving commentary from non-White commentators, attempts for a moment to explore the motive of West’s frustrations, even though they are not unique to her. Evidently, for the mainstream reporters there is nothing to explore: West is a sick racist and that is all there is to say about it; she needs to be prosecuted, as Colin Liddell says, ‘to the full extent of the law’, lest others feel emboldened also to express their rage.

But why do these expressions of White rage at the state-sponsored policy of immigration, diversity, and multiculturalism never have anything to do with the state-sponsored policy of immigration, diversity, and multiculturalism?

It seems obvious to me that if the rage follows a given pattern, comes from members of an identifiable group, flows in the same direction, there is an abundance of empirical evidence supporting the assertions made, and politicians, both in Britain and elsewhere across the West, are so scared of it being seen or understood that they feel the need to suppress it with heavy spin and heavy-handed legislation, there must be something to it beyond mere psychosis or irrational emotion.

The sheer popularity of the video and the amount of commentary it has elicited in the mainstream press suggests awareness that there are very many of who, put off by West’s vulgarity, dare not admit to sharing her sentiments. After nearly 6.7 million views and nearly 160,000 comments on YouTube since Monday, the evidence is clear.

Readers of AltRight are typically well aware of the sham nature of the Left's commitment to "tolerance," "diversity," and all their other favorite buzzwords. But the reaction of the One People's Project, a kind of left-wing parody, to the news of Elizabeth Wright's passing really drives home the point of what the cultural Marxist Left is really about. Like their Stalinist forbears, no dissent or genuine independence of thought is permitted, not even from those on whose behalf they claim to speak, whether workers or blacks. Here's some "anti-racist tolerance" for you:

ROT IN HELL!

ELIZABETH WRIGHT
CALLING HER A 'SELLOUT' WOULD BE CHARITABLE
d. 2011
How bad was Elizabeth Wright? She was a black woman, and we heard of her death via American Renaissance, complete with tribute to her written by Jared Taylor! Wright was one of those utterly despicable black conservatives that didn't just cover for white racism, she was a total apologist for white supremacists. In 1985, she started publishing the newsletter Issues & Views, and although she had this mantra that it "was derived from the wisdom of earlier generations of American blacks, like Booker T. Washington, who attempted to steer their people towards greater economic self-reliance," but to her that meant being concilitory and a segregationalist in many respects. She was no fan of multiculturalism, but that didn't stop her from defending neo-Confederacy. She was also a supporter of Holocaust deniers David Irving and Ernst Zundel while they were in jail, railed against the Civil Rights Act as "forced intergration", supported the stunt being promoted by white supremacists that the Republican Party focus only on reaching out to white voters and not anyone else and also had time to cry about the American Renaissance Conference being shut down in Charlotte, NC this year (we didn't even know she had written about that until we started writing this). Elizabeth Wright lived in New York City, which is probably why she made herself such a shut in. There were never many pictures of her, and DLJ did meet her once at a Black Conservative conference in 1995 in Washington DC, the week of the OJ Verdict (and a week before the Million Man March), and that's just as well. As we write this, the news has spread, but only to other white supremacist blogs. Seriously, if your legacy as a person of color has people who downright despise black people mourning your death as a collegue, it is probably pretty wise to hide your face. This woman will not be missed.

Wow. Robert Moore, Joey Vento and now Elizabeth Wright. Three Rot in Hells in one week. Pop the champagne and keep 'em comin'! The sooner these scumbags shuffle off this mortal coil, the better for the rest of us!

The United Kingdom is marvelling at the enrichment being visited upon the country by the multicultural state.

Inexplicably, the politicians, who worked so hard for so many years to ensure Britons did not miss out on the joys of diversity, are proving shy to take credit for the creativity and skills they have imported into the country from all corners of Africa and South Asia. Instead, they have taken to invect against the displays of rapturous exuberance sweeping the streets of London and now other cities as well.

Be that as it may, Britons today must admit, however reluctant they may have been in the past, that state-sponsored multiculturalism has finally delivered what it promised.

One of the arguments for the multicultural policy was that racial and cultural diversity would add a variety of approaches to problem-solving, with each breed of immigrant bringing with him unique ways of looking at things, thus supplementing the apparently boring, stale, and predictable ways traditionally preferred by native Britons.

A conspicuous example has now been provided by the events that began in Tottenham last Saturday.

As we know, Tottenham is an economically depressed area of the capital, with many of its residents being poor, living in squalor, and depending on state benefits. It is, however, the most diverse area in the country, and possibly of Western Europe, with 113 different ethnic groups living cheek-by-jowl in an intensely urbanised area, where no fewer than 193 languages are spoken, not including hybridised varieties of broken Cockney, gang slang, and Twitter-pidgin.

Thus, out of this cauldron of multifarious religions, sects, backgrounds, cultures, dialects, and worldviews, idiosyncratic approaches to wealth-creation have emerged over the years, creating new industries and causing others to boom. Psychoactive drug and gun traffic are thriving, providing employment and raising the standard of living of many local entrepreneurs on a scale that would not have been possible prior to the advent of multiculturalism.

Yet this is all well known to native Britons, particularly those still remaining in this and other enriched areas, and even more so to the police, who now enjoy larger budgets and can offer more opportunities for employment than before. The same must be true of cremation services.

What has not been noted in the mainstream media, however, is the degree of ecological specialisation among local residents, which news reporting on the U.K. riots have brought into relief.

On the one hand, footage on the ground has revealed that Black youths have decided to specialise on wealth redistribution, focusing on the performance of thousands of unrecorded transactions at local businesses, at all hours of the day and night, without need for shop assistance or customer service. By means of chairs, bricks, and baseball bats, they have eliminated barriers to the free circulation of goods, and have transferred substantial amounts of wealth from unmanned shop floors and into their homes. Some have posted images of themselves on Twitter, showing off their newly acquired wealth. Others have travelled to other parts of the city, seeking new vistas and opportunities. And yet others, inspired by the pioneering spirit of these Black youths, have been seen by BBC news reporters on the ground arriving with bags and inquiring where the riots were.

On the other hand, the footage has also revealed that White folk have decided to specialise on urban repair and maintenance. Reports posted on the BBC News website have shown a clean-up operations organised by volunteers, 99% of whom appear White. While various Black youths have been interviewed or filmed by the BBC reporters, both photographs and footage have revealed a nearly unbroken sea of White folk hard at work with their brooms and spades, removing the debris left by several nights of multicultural ebullience.

It is there in black and white.

As I have remarked elsewhere, this will no doubt be interpreted by proponents of multiculturalism as convincing proof that they were right all along, and that they must now intensify their efforts to bring even more of it, and introduce it as soon as possible on diversity-deprived areas, so that as many Britons as possible can share in the bliss.

“Black people gotta lotta problems
But they don’t mind throwing a brick”

Joe Strummer’s longing lyrics to The Clash’s 1977 hit White Riot are a gross libel on a community, but they also contain a grain of truth. The diplomat’s son who always wanted to be a working class hero was waxing envious about what he saw as black willingness to rise up and take direct action against the ‘system’. He wanted both to join them and have a racially exclusive “White riot—a riot of my own”.

The long unheard song has been widely aired over the last four days, as Britons watched parts of their inner cities dissolve in partly race-driven unrest, in the worst rioting for over two decades.

The problems were sparked by the police shooting last Thursday of a 29 year old black man named Mark Duggan in Tottenham, north London. At first it was said the police had fired in self-defence, but now it seems both shots were fired by police. Duggan had been under surveillance, presumably because of his membership of the Star gang, which according to the Guardian’s Gavin Knight

. . . had a notorious reputation for being armed, dealing Class A drugs and intent on making money. It was affiliated to larger, older gangs in the area.

Tottenham gossip has it that Duggan was “a major player” in the local demi-monde, who “lived by the gun” and caused “grief”. These associations seem reasonable grounds for keeping an eye on him, although of course any death at the hands of the police is unfortunate.

As always with these incidents, there will be an in-depth investigation and normally an accurate account of the circumstances eventually emerges—as happened in the recent cases of Jean Charles de Menezes and Ian Tomlinson. But there seems little appetite to await any such inquiry.

This is partly because there are especially painful echoes in Tottenham of previous confrontations between blacks (AKA “youths”) and police (called “The Feds” by youths who were playing computer games when they should have been doing homework—AKA “acting white”).

The most notorious incident was in 1985, when a white policeman called Keith Blakelock was macheted to death by youths on the Broadwater Farm Estate. The proximate cause of that violence was the death of a black woman during a police raid—and that raid had been designed to suppress rolling unrest after the police shooting a few days previously of Cherry Groce in Brixton, south of the Thames. In 1999, there was again unrest in N15 when Roger Sylvester died whilst being restrained by police.

And it is not only Tottenham which holds these memories, but large parts of black Britain. The idea that the Feds pick on the youths out of casual racism is endemic and ingrained amongst many whites as well as blacks, and is remorselessly fed by the political left.

Black-police relations are coloured (sorry!) by folk-memories of street battles going all the way to the first days of large-scale black immigration in the late 1940s. In 1958, there were the Notting Hill riots, when white Teddy Boys rocked and rolled along the streets in their blue suede shoes attacking random Afro-Caribbeans who quite naturally resisted, and since then there has been a sort of low level, sporadic ethnic intifada in parts of England’s inner cities, interspersed with outbreaks of worse violence exploited by the far Left, the mainstream Left and (counterproductively) by the far Right. The mainstream Right’s response has usually been to masterfully do nothing, trusting that the naughtiness will magick itself away.

While Conservatives alternately blustered and equivocated, and Labourites poured political petrol on all flames, inoffensive people (many black) were constrained to watch as their districts were periodically destroyed by youths AKA activists—Brixton, Toxteth, Handsworth, St. Paul’s, to name just a few once agreeable suburbs that have erupted before and have just erupted again.

Those who were (badly) paid to police these places were constrained to accept the blame for operational mistakes (rightly)—but also the far bigger mistakes made by politicians who expected them to do a Godawful job without giving them the tools they needed or even much thanks.

Not only that, but the police were accused of being at best indifferent to the needs of black people, or worse, having a “canteen culture of racism”. Anti-cop conspiracies cluster around any mysterious black deaths—like the 1981 New Cross Fire, when 13 partygoers were burned to death by a black man, which many in SE14 still believe was a police/National Front cover-up). Then there was Stephen Lawrence (which led to the 1999 Macpherson Report), Ricky Reel (Asian, but co-opted into African-ness for political purposes, who fell into the Thames and drowned in 1997) and Joy Gardner (a several times warned illegal immigrant who died in 1993 after struggling with immigration officials). The latter case inspired one of the great works of 20^th century protest poesy. Benjamin Zephaniah’s last lines are perhaps the best, and not just because they are the last:

I cannot help but wonder 
How the alien deporters 
(As they said to press reporters)
Can feel absolute relief.

Deaths of blacks while in police custody (and they are disproportionately likely to be in police custody for certain categories of crime) are especially controversial, even though 75% of such deaths are of whites. In these cases, the dead are always saintly and the police always guilty until they are proven guilty. So too with Mark Duggan – who somehow managed to combine being a criminal “major player” with being a model dad. 

There was a highly charged demonstration outside the local police station on Saturday, and afterwards vibrancy vibrated through Tottenham and adjacent areas, with what the media called “disaffected youths” setting fire to cars and buses, looting from and then torching shops. They were soon joined by shrewder others, using the “protests” as a cover to promote assorted adolescent agendas or obtain democratic discounts at JJB Sports.

On Sunday and Monday, the violence spread across London to encompass Camden/Chalk Farm, Bethnal Green, Peckham, Ealing, Deptford, Lewisham, Clapham, Croydon (a man found there with gunshot wounds later died), Bromley, Woolwich, East Ham and Stratford. Outside London, there were outbreaks in Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool, Bristol and Nottingham.

Monday night was the London Fire Brigade’s busiest ever night (including the Blitz) and the Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner admitted to the BBC “The Met was stretched beyond belief in a way that it has never experienced before.” The only good news was that several football matches were called off. London became quieter on Tuesday, thanks to the presence of 16,000 police, but there were problems in Birmingham again, and in Manchester and Wolverhampton—which could not even be headed off by the joyous news of David Cameron’s return from holiday.

The events brought in their train a half-horrible, half-hilarious farrago of fact and fantasy. There was the Russian reporter who claimed that the roaring of escaped lions and tigers from London Zoo could be heard in high streets. There was video footage of a gang of rioters who came to help a fallen man to his feet so they could go through his pockets more easily. There were stories of “vigilantes” tooling up with baseball bats to defend their families and premises. There were the girl geniuses interviewed by BBC Radio 4, sitting in the street at 9.30am drinking stolen rosé to refresh their maidenly parts after a hectic night of after-hours shopping:

It was madness, it was good fun . . . showing the rich people we can do what we want . . . it’s the governmen’s fault. The Conserva’ives, Yeah, wha’ever it is . . . who it is. I dunno.

Asked if these agreeable activities would carry on the next night, they reflected, with growing confidence.

Yeah, hopefully, definitely.

One tactician who criticized the police response seemed shy about revealing his alternative master-plan:

I don’ need to be talkin’ about wot they need ta be doin’

Another Napoleon put his finger on one of the inherent problems of “colour-blind” policing:

The police are bein’ abusive—they don’ like black people, they don’ like Asian people, they don’ like their own people.

There was an amusing disconnect between the widely quoted West Indian lady representing respectable Hackney opinion and the un-Bowdlerized Youtube actualité:

Why are you burning people’s shops that they have worked hard to build up?... Look at that shop over there, she has worked hard to make it work and you’re just going to go and burn it up?

Her impassioned addendum was less widely mentioned:

And for what, just to say you are warring and a badman? This is about a f***ing man who was shot in Tottenham. This ain’t about busting up the place. Get real, black people, get real…You lot piss me the f**k off.

There were small mercies, such as the Hackney shop-owner who found that the “feral rats” who had fingered through her stock had taken all the designer label stuff but left “the tasteful things”.

Behind this semi-comic carry-on lies a terrible story of decent people of all races besieged terrified in their own houses and waking up to find their homes, shops, streets scorched and littered with debris. On Tuesday, Channel 4 interviewed a Sri Lankan shopkeeper who had lost an estimated £30,000 worth of uninsured stock, and trembling young women trapped in Manchester city centre because their way home was blocked by hundreds of masked men breaking into shops.

And behind this again, the seriously irresponsible and unpleasant (and almost always white) hard left are at work. A leaflet entitled Don’t Panic; Don’t Talk! initially circulated in Bristol soon found its way to the Indymedia website, giving what must surely be illegal advice:

“Do think about changing your appearance…get rid ALL clothes you were wearing…spray cans, demo-related stuff, dodgy texts/photos on your phone. Don’t make life easy for them by having drugs, weapons or other illegal stuff in your house.”

The Socialist Workers’ Party (or should that be Worker’s?) jumped helpfully on the bandwagon, because “the state tries to discredit riots”. This cannot be allowed to happen, because “riots can win important gains”. They continued, with the brilliant reasoning we always hope for from this quarter:

It’s not about people smashing up their local area for no reason. It’s about them expressing their anger, wherever they happen to be.

After all, what is a riot compared with the violence dished out daily by the system?

The violence of riots is minor compared to the violence the system inflicts on a daily basis—like famines . . .  and wars that slaughter millions.

It’s all down to that Great Satan the “anarchy of the market” which As Any Fule No is “far more devastating than the supposed anarchy on the streets”.

Labour MP John McDonnell would seem to go along with some of this analysis, Tweeting sagely:

Reaping what has been sown over 3 decades of creating grotesquely unequal society with alienated young copying ethos of looting bankers.

Ken Livingstone, ex-London Mayor and again Labour candidate for that post, concurs:

[T]he economic stagnation and cuts imposed by the Tory government inevitably create social division . . . [the rioters] feel no-one at the top of society, in government or City Hall, cares about them or speaks for them.

Gavin Knight of the Guardian at least realizes there are serious obstacles in the way of rehabilitation for disaffected youths wanting to be disinfected from criminality:

Youth offenders who try to turn their back on a life on the streets are constantly hampered by prospective employers doing Criminal Records Bureau checks.

Perhaps he should lead by example, and give a few of them jobs at the Guardian. At least they’ll all have nice new trainers to wear to the interview.

Once again London has become a battlefield. On this occasion, the gunning down of an alleged cocaine dealer and gang member during a police operation in a vibrant multicultural area has been the trigger to several days of mayhem.

From 300 people massing in front of a police station to demand ‘justice’, we have gone to assaults on police officers, random property damage, and, of course, looting.

The looting is not even being done under the cover of darkness anymore. Having viewed the reports, Andrew Gilligan, from the Daily Telegraph, has observed:

On the television and YouTube pictures . . . most of the rioters and looters didn’t look angry. The ones making their way out of the smashed-up shops in Wood Green High Road with boxes full of other people’s property actually looked quite pleased. Here, at least, the quest wasn't so much for justice, more for free trainers. . . . You could see the expressions on the Wood Green looters' faces because by that stage it was daylight.

As Colin Liddell has already noted, the mainstream media has gone into damage limitation mode. They have been deploying every conceivable tactic to complicate a simple issue and deflect attention from the real problem.

Thus, the disturbances and the thieving are being blamed on poverty, idle youth, excessive urbanisation, overcrowding, the government’s austerity measures, the Summer heat, too many White policemen, unemployment, the city’s Mayor being on holiday, and a ‘tiny unrepresentative minority’ of thugs and criminals.

By far the most original tactic, however, has been the effort to blame the riots on Twitter and the BlackBerry messenger service.

Nowhere do proponents of this fascinating theory explain:

1. Why when the alleged criminal being gunned down is White, the city does not go up in flames, with White Englishmen taking to the streets to burn people’s cars and burn and loot people’s businesses.


2. Why burning and looting is not evenly distributed among Twitter and BlackBerry messenger users, as opposed to concentrated on vibrant multicultural areas in London.

The blaming of rioting and looting on Twitter and BlackBerry reminds me of the blaming of the theft of music over the internet on ‘technology’.

Is it not people, and their choices when using technology, what determines its effects?

When a thug smashes a Molotov cocktail on the parked vehicle, or applies his baseball bat to the shop window, or climbs into the off-licence or the electronics or shoe shop in order to grab as much booze, TVs, and trainers as he can hold in his arms or supermarket trolley, it is not because a 29-year-old geek in San Francisco had a bright idea five years ago; it is because the thug is out for a few days of joyous mayhem, knowing he will enjoy safety in numbers and get away with it.

Equally obvious to any thinking citizen is that were there no Afro-Caribbean ‘community’ in London, there would be no racial dimension and therefore no excuse for rioting, burning, looting, and attacking law enforcement officers.

Which takes us to how such a ‘community’ came to be in London in the first place, and why they see their neighbourhoods as loot as opposed to something that belongs to them and in which they all have a stake.

Rather inconvenient observations for proponents of immigration and multiculturalism.

On happier news, Civitas, a U.K. thinktank, has called for the Equality Commission to be abolished, arguing that it ‘contributes very little to meaningful equality’ and offers poor value for money.

A euphemism if I ever saw one.

Thanks to the Metropolitan Police's ridiculous policy of appeasement, a large part of North London resembles a bombed out scene from the 1940 Blitz following a night of rioting by the city's Afro-Caribbean "community." The riots started after about 300 people gathered outside a police station in the gang-infested area and demanded "justice" following a shooting incident in which a policeman and a suspected gang member were both shot in what appears to have been an exchange of fire.

Faced by what initially started as a peaceful demonstration, the police responded with their usual "culturally sensitive," "softly softly" approach of showing sympathy, maintaining a low police presence, avoiding assertive gestures, allowing the mob to vent its emotions, and retreating behind barriers, effectively giving a green light to the rioters and anyone else who was interested to run amok.

With other emergency services unable to intervene, scores of shops were looted and burnt, while the inadequate numbers of police officers sent to contain the violence were not properly equipped with riot gear resulting in several officers being hospitalized.

Despite the unfortunate results of this policy and the obvious criminality of a large section of the West Indian "community," much of the emphasis in the mainstream media has been on rationalizing the actions of the mob as an understandable if regrettable reaction to police shortcomings and attributing all negative actions to a "tiny unrepresentative minority" – the typical hallmarks of the leftist multiracial state in damage limitation mode.

The truth is that whatever the Metropolitan Police do to police the gun, knife, and drug crime of London's West Indian "community," it will breed resentment. Drug-fuelled criminality and gang culture are so ingrained among young West Indians that any effective policing has to involve frequent interactions between the police and this group that can only breed tension and resentment.

The attempt to eradicate the criminality of the West Indian "community" is problematic for the leftist multiracial state as it essentially involves the imposition of White standards on an ethnic group that clearly has little inclination to accept these standards. For this very reason most of the establishment types have been calling for greater interaction with "community leaders." This is a subtle recognition of the fact that Tottenham and other heavily Black neighborhoods are de facto independent statelets whose main connection with wider British society is as recipients of welfare and repositories of badly retailed drugs.

In a valiant effort to broaden its audience and bring their characters in line with the twenty-first century, Marvel Comics have unveiled their brand new Spiderman. Great excitement and joy has been recorded in Latin America. 

It seems Peter Parker was of a race that had become obsolete and irrelevant in our vibrant multicultural society. The only adequate response was to kill him and for the archetype to reincarnate itself in a more postmodern avatar. White comic book readers can now let out an epic sigh or relief (hurricanes will be hitting Africa and Asia shortly), for their comic books are now once again acceptable for public reading and display. 

Of course, this is part of a wider effort in the entertainment industry, and no doubt Superman and Batman will soon be updated accordingly. Some television characters have already been updated: a few years ago, for example, Kojak was re-imagined as a Black man—although, strangely, he did not prove popular. Perhaps the producers jumped the gun, and should have waited until the advent of Obama the Great. Much that was previously thought impossible has become possible under the leadership of that man.

I suppose I will be forgiven for wondering if this project, which we could well call The Great Erasure (i.e., the grandiose project of erasing Whites and Whiteness in art, advertising, and media representations everywhere), means that I and those who look like me are being targeted for physical erasure one day. What do you think?

You can read about the exciting new Spiderman 2.0 in the BBC report reproduced below.

Marvel Comics introduces mixed-race Spider-Man

BBC, 3 August 2011

Marvel Comics has unveiled a new half-black, half-Latino Spider-Man, who replaces the recently killed-off Peter Parker.

Miles Morales, introduced in Marvel's Ultimate Fallout Issue 4, is a nerdy teenager from New York City.

Marvel editor-in-chief Axel Alonso said the new web-slinger "speaks to our rich cultural heritage" in the US.

Parker died in Ultimate Spider-Man Issue 160 in June during a fight with his bitter enemy, Green Goblin.

Like Parker, Morales is a geeky, working-class teenager from the boroughs of New York City.

Morales lives with his black and Latino parents in ethnically diverse Brooklyn, while Parker was white and raised by his aunt and uncle in a mainly white neighbourhood in Queens.

"Going into this we knew we wanted to make a statement about the 21st century," said Alonso.

The Marvel editor-in-chief, whose mother was from England and father from Mexico, said he cried when Barack Obama was elected president "partly because he was African-American but largely because of the fact that he was mixed race".

Alonso added that when Morales "peels off his mask now, he's going to have a very different look and he's going to resonate emotionally with all sorts of new readers".

He told AFP news agency Spidey writer Brian Michael Bendis is Jewish and has two adopted children from Africa.

"So I know for him it was definitely personal," Alonso said.