I note that the anger of the rioters was directed at note only banks and other institutions, but also places of luxury such as confectionary store Fortnum and Mason, as well as The Ritz. This is well in line with the left's continued assault on luxury and culture, which ultimately hurts the rank and file man or woman in the street - not the rich that the left claim to be punishing or attacking.
The rest of the article can be found at The American Thinker here."Last Saturday, London was hit by what is now a regular occurrence in Britain: the violent rioting and looting by a growing number of socialist, militant environmentalist and anarchist groups, intent on dishing out as much harm as possible to British capitalism.
Although (as state controlled BBC told us over and over again) the actual rioters were a relative minority of the protesters, they appear to have implicit support from the majority of the approximately 400,000 that descended upon the capital. Spokespersons for the marchers seemed angrier at "the media" for covering such violence than those who were violent, and one can see from the coverage of the event that for every small gang of violent thugs, there was a much larger crowd of leftists behind them cheering them on.
This is nothing new; anti-capitalist marches during G8 summits, protests against hikes in tuition fees, and now protests against spending cuts have all ended in rioting and destruction of property, without any sign of opposition from the majority of protesters.
What is interesting about the riots is the targets that were chosen. Yes, there were the usual symbols of Chomskyite "anti-corporate" rage, such as Starbucks, McDonalds and various banks. Yet, other targets, such as Nelson's column, The Ritz, and luxury confectionary store Fortnum and Mason are notable for being targets of a different kind of rage -- something best defined as an anti-cultural iconoclasm from the left.
Although the left claim that the targets were attacks on the privileged rich, a closer look allows us to see the root of such attacks in socialist ideology. For the left have not changed their ideology, they have only changed the way in which it is expressed. The destruction of a nation's culture, history and the luxuries a nation provides has always been a cornerstone of socialist revolution. From the book burning of Mao's China to the destruction of the Russian Orthodox churches in Lenin's Russia, leftists have always attacked the symbols of a nation's culture and its luxuries.
The more traditional, anti-religious iconoclasm -- as seen most notably in Lenin's Russia -- can still be observed whenever one accompanies a leftist on a trip to the Vatican. They can be guaranteed to at some point sniff, "These jewels and churches should be sold off and given to the poor" while failing to see that it is usually the poor who are finding spiritual nourishment in those churches that our leftist comrades would have sold off. They can almost certainly be relied on to add "that is what Jesus would do" despite it almost being a word for word quote of Judas, not Christ[i].
Yet it is a more anti-cultural iconoclastic spirit that motivates leftists to smash up "homes of the rich" such as The Ritz and Fortnum and Mason. While the socialists may believe they are punishing the bourgeoisie for their high living and exploitation of the proletariat, they are in fact often punishing those whom they claim to be helping..."