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.

Contrary to what most of the pundits are saying, the recent Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election in the UK was very revealing about the state and direction of British politics.

With Labour winning a seat they have held since its inception (42 percent of the vote), the Liberal-Democrats coming second with a marginally increased percentage of the vote (31.9 percent), and the Conservative vote being squeezed in a seat they had little hope of winning (12.8 percent), political commentators have been left with little of interest to remark on. But this is because they have been ignoring yet again the increasingly important substratum of British politics and how it impacts on the top flight.

I’m not about to say that the substratum parties—essentially the BNP, UKIP, and the Greens—are about to break through, but, with parties outside the big three scoring almost 12 percent of the vote in the last general election, how the political establishment deals with this increasingly important segment of the electorate will determine which of the big parties runs Britain and how.

The most significant fact of the 2010 general election was the narrowness of the result. After 13 years of economic mismanagement, rising taxes, and destructive social engineering, at a time of severe economic turbulence, and with a leader who lacked the glib charm now required by voters, the Labour Party should have been wiped out by the Conservatives.

As it was, there was only a 5 percent swing from Labour to Conservatives, so that the Conservatives were forced to rely on the help of Britain’s perpetual bridesmaid party, the Lib-Dems, to form what may yet prove to be ramshackle coalition.

When the Labour Party lost the May 2010 election, I did not exactly share their sadness. This was not because I saw the incoming government as representing fundamental change; rather, this was because the Labour government of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown had already proven so fantastically destructive that it was difficult to imagine anything topping five more years of Labour inferno.

The electoral repulsion of Gordon Brown triggered a leadership contest within this wretched party, an event about which Derek Turner has already written very amusingly for Taki’s Magazine. Absent evidence of complete disarray, crisis, depression, despair, tiffs, quarrels, clashes, faction, division, schism, disunity, schizophrenia, paranoia, catatonia, paralysis, and radical soul-searching, a Labour leadership election is a potent soporific. Who wants to listen to a freak show of fossilized Marxists pontificating about fairness and equality? Life is too short.

But when the electorate holds back from crushing them into oblivion, when the government ends up being a coalition of Liberals and Conservatives, the prospect of a Labour comeback cannot be dismissed: their next leader might well end up being our future Prime Minister.

Many of the Muslims who come to live in the West must daily shake their heads in amazement, unable to believe how stupid Westerners are to not only give away their wealth and paradise, but actually persecute the few who dare object. Said Muslims come here as conquerors, and our political leaders, instead of defending the interests of the people they were elected to represent, provide them with every conceivable aid to expedite the conquest. True, even the traitorous Labour government of Tony Blair found it within itself to jail or deport some of the most notorious cases; but such action, when it has been taken at all, always came late, was limited in scope, and struck one as cosmetic and expedient in character: the deeper problem – government sponsorship of foolish immigration policies, political correctness, and multiculturalism, which began and encouraged the progressive Islamisation of our society – remained untreated, and is still in fact consciously and willfully compounded through its promotion, financing, legalisation, and court enforcement, year after year after year. It is no wonder these would-be Muslim conquerors hold us in contempt.