Thursday, August 11, 2011

Smelly Media: London: The Cluterf##k of Liberalism

London is burning.

First we get to the opinion of experts, and researchers,

And then I try to enlighten thee with my common man's sense and logic 101.


Experts on London riots: A protest of the marginalised

“The authorities and the marginalised youths are locked in daily battle in the
society, and the general malaise at times grows into riots,” says Mika
Aaltola, Global Director for a Global Security research programme at the
institute.

This opinion is echoed by Risto Heiskala, Director of the Institute for Social
Research at the University of Tampere. Heiskala says that the poor
relationship between the police and the population has created an
environment in which a possible mistake on part of the police triggered
discontent.
I bolded "marginalized" because a more apt word would be "disenfranchised"... Many of the kids were marginalised before they were -ised. They were already on the margins to begin with (i.e.: "They were alienated because they were alien to begin with"). But then comes the disenfranchising. Arithmetically adds the non-marginalized to the picture and geometrically increases the wrath of the marginalized.

Researcher: Income gap behind Britain riots

British rioters seem to be mostly youths from lower socio-economic
backgrounds, says social sciences expert Antti Karjalainen. He says that
disparities between the haves and the have-nots helped set the stage for the
current unrest.
...
Karjalainen says that the explanation for the riots is not quite as simple as
the British politicians and authorities claim when they cast it as pure
criminality. The social sciences expert says that the roots of the problem
run far deeper.

There is more text in the news, but this suffices.

Unlike my usual behavior, I will not go an disagree with these experts. I think the analysis are on point, with the caveat that I will claim that due to their positions they are either blinded by PC, or mouth-taped by PC.

Here is how I see it:

The London Riots are the Clusterf%%k of Liberalism.

Why?

Some examples:

Political Correctness prevented the police to act with necessary force to stop the riots before they started. With no danger of getting arrested, with no danger even if getting arrested, and it being illegal for the property owners to protect themselves (unless, of course they are a minority); the youth was free to burn and pillage. Political correctness silenced any voices that could have prevented these events if they had gotten heard and used to implement policies.

Welfare State bred many of these "marginalized youth". You get what you subsidize. Humans work on incentives. If you pay people to do nothing (sometimes more than a low wage job), and pay them to breed, you will get people breeding who have no hope of giving any resemblance of a life to their children. In studies it has been shown that many times welfare recipients breed kids that are welfare recipients. Monkey see, monkey do. So when you give people the incentive to be a well paid bum, and make kids, you get this part of the society expanding. A part that would have kept itself in demographic check, if the resources were not there. I am not talking about people dying of hunger, I am talking about the welfare recipients breeding geometrically; more welfare recipients.

Feminism destroyed any future for a young male , broke the social contract between men and women, the contract that created civilization. Disenfranchised men (only one of the evils of the feminazi). No job prospects, no family prospects; coming from a single mother home, no father figure. These men have nothing to loose, but all to gain; as the women are coming from similar dysfunctional families and are not rewarding function, but survival/dysfunction/criminality."Boys are stupid throw rocks at them.", "The end of men", "Slimes and puppy tails".... Well, boys, show them what they claimed you were.

Single motherhood has taken the fathers away from men. Has made the father into a wallet with a restraining order. Boys cannot grow to be men without a father figure. To add, any outside father figure got screwed by feminism's efforts. Without fathers in the picture, women also grow up to be like their single mothers. Irresponsible and dependent on the state.

Multiculturalism put cultures together that have existed in peace only because of clear cut borders or thousands of kilometers in between. Now that they are in the same place, it is like putting matches and gunpowder into a kids hands.

Diversity became the number one mantra for organisations. Accomplishments did not matter. The men who would accomplish something were run over by diversity. And comes the saying "diversity plus proximity equals war"... London just has seen this.

Affirmative Action destroyed the police force, made it a joke. Affirmative action destroyed the higher levels of organizations, made them a joke. the rioters had nothing to fear. (hat tip, Dalrock)

A liberal diverse feminist state needs to be a police state (no? well, UK is a liberal diverse feminist state, and it is a police state; just look at the number of cameras needed). Once you are a police state, the police will run AMOK; when it has the odds in favor, and run like chicken when the odds are against. So, this in turn means the alienation of the law abiding; as they are the only ones the police has power against. Alienation of the law abiding leads to alienated outlaws.

Have I missed any more related liberal policies?

I ask:
Why should indigenous men have any sense of duty towards a society that has been punishing them since they were born?
Why should any alien man have any sense of duty towards a society that he has not been  born into?
Why should marginalized men have any fear if there is nothing to fear, and why should they refrain if the rewards on the end of the road resemble a harem of their own?


Liberals played God,
Only thing they will have managed to create will be Hell. 



Addendum:

Some question do not leave my mind.
- The PC-trained police has been shown to be ineffective in protecting the law abiding citizens.
- If the police is ineffective should it be made legal to protect your shop/street from looters, by using violence
- Is it time to change the self defence laws which currently protect the assaulter?
- Is police training in sensitivity the right thing, should the police rather be trained in policing?
- Will the liberals accept that since they have been in the policing business for decades; feminists, leftist, diversity cultists, welfareists etc, that these events are a direct result of their policies?
- Will the west accept that fathers are a necessary part of raising boys; and girls?
- Are homogenous cultures better at defending/protecting/supporting their member when facing some kind of disaster?
- Does it make sense to stock up on few weeks of canned food etc?
- Is it clear that the police exists to protect and serve, not to make the diversity cultists and the eqwaalitists feel good?
- Once the government has shown clearly they are now able to protect the law abiding, and even punish the law abiding for self defense, what route is left for the law abiding?
- Is it clear that "Feel Good", "Politically Correct", "We need to understand eachother" policies were destructive, while a few good placed plastic bullets, a few batons, some water from the hoses could have stopped the riots?
- Whose fault is it if the law abiding citizens start lynching future rioters, now that the law abiding citizens have seen that organization and staying together is the only way to protect their families and livelyhoods.
- Are the human rights of a house burning rioter the same as a law abiding citizen? Are we all equal even if our choices are constructive or destructive?

1 comment: