I was reading an article by Janet Daly, whom I rather like even if I do not always agree with (I met her at a Stockholm Network shindig once and found her sharp and charming), in which she excoriates the NYTimes for a risible screed about the recent riots in Britain:
Never likely to be outdone when it comes to Left-liberal sententiousness, the New York Times has produced a corker of a leading article on our very own riots. With a mock-judicious bit of throat-clearing, it begins on a tone of apparently unimpeachable even-handedness: “nothing can justify or excuse the terrifying wave of lawlessness, etc, etc … the perpetrators must be punished, etc, etc.”
But it then lurches into an absurd compounding of the irrelevant and the ill-informed. David Cameron, the paper intones, is “a product of Britain’s upper classes and schools”. (This is scarcely intelligible English: does it mean upper-class schools?) And so, presumably as a consequence of his class-induced ignorance, “he has blamed the looting and burning on a compound of national moral decline, bad parenting and perverse inner-city subculture”.
Yes indeed he has, thus putting himself in agreement with about 90 per cent of the British population. But the New York Times in as uninterested in the overwhelming majority of British public opinion as it is in the great mass of American public opinion. It is as smugly and narrowly orthodox in its Left-liberal posturing as its counterparts in Britain
Good stuff. But what really caught my eye was a comment under this article by a blogger rejoicing in the giggle inducing pseudonym “He’s Spartacus”, which I reproduce entirely here as it is rather splendid:
Comments are pre-moderated at the NYT and I have little doubt that mine will not pass muster, so here it is….
It’s difficult to know where to begin dissecting this flatulent nonsense, it’s so full of holes, so I’ll content myself with saying that the NYT continues to demonstrate that it knows as little about the reality of life in Britain as it does about America.
No….wait….scratch that….
This social disintegration is exactly what clear thinkers have been warning about for more than half a century.
Replace the family with the State, bellow “revolution!” from every street corner while in reality making the banks and corporations you claim to hate yet more powerful because, loath though you may be to admit it, they debt-fund the State’s rent-seeking schemes and social engineering projects, steal our money at gunpoint to pay for it all, ghettoise entire communities by telling them they can develop separately (now where have I heard that before?)….
What were you THINKING?
Reap the whirlwind.
Now for the good news….
The state has failed, and the really good news is that a lot of people have worked this out for themselves, as evidenced by the thousands of ordinary, law-abiding folk who, once they had recovered from initial impact of the sheer cold-bloodedness and randomness of the violence, took responsibility for protecting their own streets and neighbourhoods.
If this spells the beginning of the end of the nanny state, I for one will raise a glass to the state-created bottom-feeders who initiated it.
To which all I can say is… amen to that.
In other words it was a typical New York Times article. Dog bites man. Wake me when something new under the sun occurs.
Not that I’m stalking you or anything….
If this spells the beginning of the end of the nanny state, I for one will raise a glass to the state-created bottom-feeders who initiated it.
That’s a lot to hope for. My guess is the government will make things a whole lot worse trying to make them better, and in the end it will raise taxes and assume more police powers to protect the nanny state.
It would take a Soviet Union style collapse to actually (maybe) end the nanny state. I don’t see that in the cards for decades, worst case.
No “He’s Spartacus” is not Spartacus – “I’m Spartacus” is Spartacus.
…err… I think….
“Replace the family with the State, bellow “revolution!” from every street corner while in reality making the banks and corporations you claim to hate yet more powerful because, loath though you may be to admit it, they debt-fund the State’s rent-seeking schemes and social engineering projects, steal our money at gunpoint to pay for it all, ghettoise entire communities by telling them they can develop separately (now where have I heard that before?)….”
During the Middle Ages and Renaissance, Christians were not supposed to charge interest. Therefore, the most common moneylenders-to-kings were Jews. They could loan money at a profit, and were thus more likely to lend it.
But whenever the King’s debts got too large to repay, he began to demonize the Jews. And eventually came a pogrom. And hey-ho, the debt went away along with the Jews.
I’m seeing the demonization of banks. I wonder how long before government throws a pogrom.
“I’m seeing the demonization of banks. I wonder how long before government throws a pogrom.”
Its already started:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-14492706
Also…good posts Perry and He’s Spartacus (I’m lost, who’s Spartacus?)
I’ve been reading the punditry in London newspapers these past couple of weeks, and detect two dominant themes. The liberals say “Public order must be enforced, but…” The conservatives say “Public order must be enforced, therefore…”
Yes, very good indeed.
But from what I have seen of controllers (including “the state”) they do not give up that easily.
There will be a precipitated over-reaction, or some obscuration of the truth that will “force” the “benevolent” powers-that-be to step in and take control.
They are, after all, the only ones that know best.
(In the same vein as promoting ’24 hour drinking’ and then bewailing the plight of drunken youth that requires state intervention to put up the price of alcohol to protect them, etc, etc)
Social disintegration is as much as a right-wing bogeyman as the many bogeymen of the left. The existence of some – outrageous, and actively media-covered – anecdotal outbursts of violence is by no means evidence of a disintegrating society.
It is not just street violence that indicates that civil society is in decline – indeed this is (in some ways) the least important evidence.
Family breakdown and the deline of voluntary institutions are far more important evidence.
It may not be in deline everywhere – but in Britain and the United States, civil society is deep trouble.
Especially in Britain – where (in spite of relatively little violence) I suspect the decline is terminal.
Those of us not on the NYT’s particular wave length watched the riots in the UK with horror for two reasons; one, these people were destroying neighborhoods without anyone fighting back for too long and two, none of the thugs were shot or beaten bloody by people defending their lives and property. We already had dismissed the police as being unable to even patrol some of those areas in quiet times, how could they deal with such in a far worse situation?
The US has descended quite far into the hell of European social democracy but in most places, dozens if not hundreds of those rioters would have been killed or injured by people defending themselves (with some notable geographic locations of course). Then again if those savages had been resisted on Day 1, it would likely have never got that far to begin with.
When you can’t legally defend yourself or your property, there really is nothing left of your society but what government decides is worth guarding for you.