The London Rioters and Their Targets

My latest article is out in The American Thinker.  Once again it is on the March 26th rioters and is a reflection on the precise nature of the targets that they chose, and what it says about the ideology of the left.

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.

"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..."

The rest of the article can be found at The American Thinker here.

Time to Let the Police Fight Back

It is difficult to know where to start with Saturday’s “March for the Alternative.”  Do I comment on how, despite the name, no alternative except for “spend more, tax more and deny the deficit at all costs” was put forward?  Do I challenge the protesters’ claim to represent the majority of Britons, when considering the turnout was around 400,000 they cannot even claim to represent the majority of public sector union members (approximately 4 million) even if one ignores the fact that the majority of the crowd were students and rent-a-mob?

My initial thought was to point out that the Suffragettes, the American Civil Rights movement and the South African anti-apartheid movement that Ed Miliband unironically tried to compare the protest to, were all fighting for freedom from state tyranny, not trying to impose such tyranny on others as the radical marchers wish to do.


Yet as I thought of the above, all made me chuckle and shake my head.  The thing that made me really angry about the whole march was the left’s treatment and disregard of the police, and I do not just mean the violent minority.
As much as the left in both Britain and America try and stoke up fear about the rise of the “violent right”, such groups have absolutely nothing on the organisation, aggression, and sheer violence of the violent left.  Every time there is a G8 protest, a tuition fees protest, or an anti-cuts protest, you can guarantee that London is getting smashed up, and police officers will be injured.

We knew this for weeks, and yet organisers and marchers seemed not to care either before or after.  The organisers were too busy worrying about whether the police response would be a bit too rough for their liking, and the so-called non-violent protesters on the day were cheering the violent ones on, not calling for them to stop.  The most telling of pictures is the one that accompanies this article – one violent protester attacking a police officer, while three grinning lefties film the officer with glee in the hope that he retaliates so that they can send their images off to the BBC as evidence of “police brutality.”


After the march, there have been the typically vague statements of “regret” by organisers of the violence, yet such statements seek only to assure us that they were “a minority” instead of showing genuine remorse for the violence, destruction of private and public property, and injured Bobbies that they left in their wake.


Since then we have had articles in the Guardian informing us that actually the violence is all exaggerated by the media.  The Guardian’s Michael White informs us about how wonderful and “carnival-like” the march was, describing the trespassing UK Uncut (who broke into private stores and defaced and smashed them up) as “wholesome”, and condemning TV for covering the hooligans and not the “real” story.


Well, the real story was that 31 police officers were injured, 11 of which were taken to hospital.  Protesters used smoke bombs, petrol bombs, and light bulbs filled with ammonia – all three of which can kill a police officer.  But instead, the left are more concerned that the camera didn’t pick up on their “witty” signs.


We have seen no videos of police getting injured, we know of none of the names of the officers, nor have there been any interviews with the officers in question to see if they are okay.  We do not even know what the injuries are that they received.  Yet all the “non-violent” protesters were lurking with their phones and cameras, waiting for that moment of police “brutality” that they can run off with to the BBC, howling like a child with a bruised knee at the injustice of it all.
Whenever a protester is injured, we are told about it at length and in detail, along with interviews with the “victim” about how scarred and traumatised they are by the whole thing.  We are lectured constantly about the sheer, unadulterated horror of kettling – the “controversial” (so says the Guardian) tactic by which our poor, persecuted student revolutionaries have to suffer the indignity of standing around for a bit.  Yet, cave a police officer’s head in with a piece of wood, and no-one seems to care -just as long as no-one hurts one of our precious Che wannabes.

What is so abhorrent about this whole process is that 31 officers didn’t need to be injured on Saturday.  Yet, the Met have bowed to the pressure of the professional left who howl about how shocked and appalled they are whenever an officer dares to swing a baton in the direction of a protester.  It has resulted in a softly softly approach that only served to put police officers in danger of serious injury or worse.


It is time to stop kowtowing to the professional left and to start protecting our officers by allowing them to fight back against these cowards posing as revolutionaries.  If these latte drinking Bolsheviks want a fight, then fine.  They can bring their ammonia filled light bulbs, and our boys in blue will bring tear gas and a good baton swing – let’s see who goes home crying to Mummy.

Lefty British Students Engage in Mass Tantrum

Well, we knew this was coming!  We had watched the French descend into chaos over the decision to extend the retirement age by a year, so when the Coalition engaged in spending cuts, it was likely that at least one group was going to start kicking up the place.  Every now and again there will be a G8/G20 etc conference, and a "minority" (a word always used when it is leftists being violent) of protestors start destroying buildings, throwing bins through McDonalds in addition to the usual whining, so another left-wing attack on private property was inevitable.

Yesterday was the day.  A student protest at the possibility of raising the cap for university fees from approximately £3,000 to £9,000 (that's right my American friends, British students are bitching at having to possibly pay $12,000 a year for University, that is how spoilt we are) quickly turned violent.  Police, who have been criticised by all sort of victims groups for their "harsh" treatment of rioters in previous protests, decided (understandably) not to step in, and Tory HQ was destroyed by a relatively small mob (I say relatively, it was still well over 500 people), but a small mob who was being cheered by a large amount of people nearby.

Obviously this is completely obscene.  The police should have had the ability to wade in, tear gas the entire place and start swinging batons.  They have a duty to defend those people who wish to go about their daily business without being attacked by a bunch of middle class communists.  However, Britain has completely castrated its police, so we have only ourselves to blame that it ended up being police officers who were being carried out bleeding and injured, and not the ones causing the trouble.

However, what is the most interesting thing about this is how the protesters and rioters view themselves.  They seem to think of themselves as some sort of freedom fighters, fighting for the "rights" of their fellow students, and for freedom against "the tyranny".  However, they are quite the opposite.  In their claim for "free education", they are not arguing for any such thing.  There is no free education, the only question is who bears the brunt of the cost - those who receive the education and the primary benefits, or those who do not receive the education, and who might only possibly receive some sort of secondary benefit?

All conservatives are asking is that people bear the cost of their own education.  They make the decision to do something, therefore they must pay for it.  If they cannot afford to, then there are a number of ways to get round this, from loans to bursaries to part time jobs and part time studying.  The question is ultimately not one of "How much should education cost?" because the price does not change - the only question is "Who pays for it?"

Conservatives want those who are making the free decision to go to University to bear the cost, while the leftists setting fire to things want taxpayers to be forced to pay for optional education for people who they do not know, and who may in fact be earning a lot more than those unfortunate taxpayers in the future.  So, who is really fighting for freedom from tyranny?  Conservatives are simply fighting for taxpayers to be allowed to do what they wish with their money, and not be forced to fund a bunch of people who will, at the first sign of an increase in fees, go and cause thousands of pounds worth of damage to public buildings.

Of course the ultimate irony is that if those students who took a day of from University to travel to London and trash private property chose instead to get a part-time job and work on those free days, then they would be in a much better position financially then they are currently!