London's Burning ~ Rubbing Their Noses In Diversity!

[Snipe]

Riots over the past 4 nights have consumed much of London in flames, and they spread to four other cities.

When you read the news, see the photos and watch the videos, some impressive British Multiculturalism is on display.

Rubbing Their Noses In Diversity

Andrew Neather is a former Tony Blair advisor and Labour Party speechwriter turned journalist. Neather let this one slip in an article in 2009:

Don't listen to the whingers - London needs immigrants (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23760073-dont-listen-to-the-whingers---london-needs-immigrants.do)
~ By Andrew Neather
23 Oct 2009


The results in London, and especially for middle-class Londoners, have been highly positive. It's not simply a question of foreign nannies, cleaners and gardeners - although frankly it's hard to see how the capital could function without them.

Their place certainly wouldn't be taken by unemployed BNP voters from Barking or Burnley - fascist au pair, anyone? Immigrants are everywhere and in all sorts of jobs, many of them skilled.

It is amazing how liberal elites view their own countrymen. Mr. Neather, a liberal speechwriter and member of London's establishment press is one such elite. He can't imagine his life without the low wage foreign nannies, cleaners and gardeners. These people are great for his country because they constitute his servant class, and they know their place. He can't imagine giving such employment to his fellow countrymen, who he disdains as backward and "fascist".

We have the same thing here when elites take about "Flyover country". You can see it in the distrust of tea party patriots and small town America. Bigotry like this is both allowed and encouraged among the elite.

He continues:


I wrote the landmark speech given by then immigration minister Barbara Roche in September 2000, calling for a loosening of controls. It marked a major shift from the policy of previous governments: from 1971 onwards, only foreigners joining relatives already in the UK had been permitted to settle here.

That speech was based largely on a report by the Performance and Innovation Unit, Tony Blair's Cabinet Office think-tank.

The PIU's reports were legendarily tedious within Whitehall but their big immigration report was surrounded by an unusual air of both anticipation and secrecy.

Drafts were handed out in summer 2000 only with extreme reluctance: there was a paranoia about it reaching the media.

Eventually published in January 2001, the innocuously labelled "RDS Occasional Paper no. 67", "Migration: an economic and social analysis" focused heavily on the labour market case.

But the earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.

I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn't its main purpose - to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.


Immigration driven by a political purpose? They wanted to "rub the Right's nose in diversity". That is astounding that a liberal would admit that, though many conservatives have suspected that to be the case for quite some time, both here and across the pond. One political party benefits from immigration. Here as in Britain, immigrants give liberals an instant constituency.

Treason

This revelation tended to tick off conservatives:


Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html)
Labour threw open Britain's borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a "truly multicultural" country, a former Government adviser has revealed.


The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".

As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.

Critics said the revelations showed a "conspiracy" within Government to impose mass immigration for "cynical" political reasons.

Then some Freedom of Information Act requests confirmed that this was indeed government policy:


Labour's 'secret plan' to lure migrants
The Government has been accused of pursuing a secret policy of encouraging mass immigration for its own political ends. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/7198329/Labours-secret-plan-to-lure-migrants.html)

Labour's secret plan to lure immigrants was borderline treason – and plain stupid (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100025635/labours-secret-plan-to-lure-immigrants-was-borderline-treason-and-plain-stupid/)


Incredible. I am stunned. Back in October Andrew Neather, a former Labour party speechwriter, let the cat out the bag when he said that the Government had encouraged immigration “to rub the Right’s nose in diversity”. But while Neather quickly backtracked, documents now released under the Freedom of Information Act suggest that he was telling the truth. Rather than being the result only of incompetence or a short-term economic measure to reduce inflation, Labour’s policy of runaway immigration was a deliberate and cynical attempt to change the face of British society.


The document released yesterday suggested that Labour originally pursued a different direction. It was published under the title “Migration: an economic and social analysis” but the removal of significant extracts suggested that officials or ministers were nervous over references to “social objectives”.

The original paper called for the need of a new framework for thinking about migration policy but the concluding phrase — “if we are to maximise the contribution of migration to the Government’s economic and social objectives” — was edited out.

Another deleted phrase suggested that it was “correct that the Government has both economic and social objectives for migration policy”.

Sir Andrew Green, the chairman of Migrationwatch, said the document showed that Mr Neather, who claimed ministers wanted to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, had been correct in his account of Labour’s immigration policy.

It wasn’t just idealism on Labour’s part, either – there was a fair amount of cynicism, too. Ethnic minorities have historically tended to vote Labour; making Britain more multi-ethnic would mean more Labour voters. Since the early 1980s Labour has promoted a policy of multiculturalism which, in effect, meant promoting and funding self-appointed “community leaders” (often extremists or crooks) in return for the votes of “their” community. And one of Jack Straw’s first move when he became Home Secretary in 1997 was to make it easier to bring spouses into the country, a demand of short-sighted Bangladeshi and Pakistani community leaders. According to Labour MP Chris Mullin’s diary, Labour MPs back in 2004 were disgusted by the abuses of the asylum and immigration system, but could say nothing because “there is the added difficulty that at least 20 Labour seats, including Jack Straw’s, depend on Asian votes”.

What are the consequences of this cynical political ploy to bolster Labour's voting block and "Rub the Right's noses in diversity?" Turn on TV and you can see their handiwork when London is burning. Read about the riots that have been sweeping over the nation in recent days. They aren't just rubbing the Right's nose in it, they are rubbing all of Britain's nose in it. What you are witnessing on your televisions is the culmination of decades of policies promoting the cultural suicide of the West.

Enoch Powell saw rivers of blood. The worst is yet to come. Not only do some of the elites wish this to happen, they would like to rub your nose in it.

And if you don't think that the same cynical politics are played with our own immigration system, I have a Multicultural Bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

[Snipe]

More on Treason (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100025635/labours-secret-plan-to-lure-immigrants-was-borderline-treason-and-plain-stupid/)(cont)


It is almost impossible to exaggerate what a revolution Britain has undergone in the past dozen years, a demographic change not just unprecedented in our history, but in almost any country’s. This island was quite fantastically undiverse until recently – before the Second World War between 70 and 75 per cent of British DNA had been British for 13000 years, and later migrations made a neglible impact, with even the largest and most culturally influential, the Anglo-Saxon invasion, comprising only about 4 per cent of British DNA. Last year a quarter of births in England were to foreign mothers.

But what Labour has done is not only borderline treason, it’s also very, very stupid, and against their own interests. Multi and bi-racial societies do not vote along class lines, as the monocultural British always have done: they tend to vote along tribal lines. Look at the Deep South, Northern Ireland and Lebanon and ask yourself – where are their multicultural centre-Left socialist parties? Labour has gained a multi-cultural following but, as we saw at the Euro elections, lost much of its traditional power base to the previously laughable British National Party, now the new tribal party of working-class white Britons. Labour’s great gift to the British people is the poisonous legacy of tribal politics.

We have the same tribal politics here.

Champions of Diversity! Let's hear it for Multiculturalism!

[Tardy Turtle]

Between this and the flash mob thread your use of tildes in thread titles is off-the-charts impressive.

[boozehound]

Between this and the flash mob thread your use of tildes in thread titles is off-the-charts impressive.

It's becoming his new signature.

[paulxu]

What? You want to make our homogeneous society multi-cultural and all I get is $24 in beads for this island (and bridge)? Get back on your boat.

[bourbonman]

Was just in London this past summer and stayed out near Marble Arch (not near where riots have been). Yet, that area has changed so much since I stayed there for my daughter's graduation 5 years ago, that I was uncomfortable. Minor disturbances occurred twice on two different evenings that I quit walking from the tube to the hotel.

[smileyy]

Was just in London this past summer and stayed out near Marble Arch (not near where riots have been). Yet, that area has changed so much since I stayed there for my daughter's graduation 5 years ago, that I was uncomfortable. Minor disturbances occurred twice on two different evenings that I quit walking from the tube to the hotel.

Its ok, as our own economy collapses because no one can figure out how to create a *($#ing job, we can anticipate class (not race) based unrest of our own.

[bobbiemcgee]

You can always move to Slab City, it's free:



http://vagabonders-supreme.net/SlabCity.htm

but bring a gun.

[PM Thor]

I don't understand how Snipe has overlooked that the Citylink project broke ground today. I thought his head would splode with that one.

As for London, I want a white homogeneuos community for the Olympics next year, that I should be attending. Wait, I think there might be a problem...

I HATE dayton.

[Snipe]

Citylink changed their mission from a "Homeless Mall" (or Homeless Maul) to a center dedicated to helping the working poor. If they do what they say I am pleasantly surprised at their change of heart but still cautious about them.

Looks like they are going to move the Drop In Center to Dalton. I think it should be moved to Queensgate, near the dumps and the Sewer District. You could fence them in on three sides with the Licking River, the Ohio River and the highway (US 50). It also wouldn't be close to any residential neighborhood.

No neighborhood wants a homeless mall. Poor black neighborhoods usually get stuck with them because they lack the political capital and organization to fight, and you can bribe off their leaders more easily.

I guess we will see how Citylink works in practice. I still don't trust them, but in general I like the way their plans have changed.

Good luck with the Olympics. Things should be calmed down by then.


Its ok, as our own economy collapses because no one can figure out how to create a *($#ing job, we can anticipate class (not race) based unrest of our own.

They certainly have been ramping up the class war rhetoric. I pray that we don't have riots and start torching our own cities. What is happening over there is so destructive. Many of the businesses will not come back and people have been ruined. For what? It is senseless.

[Smooth]

I think it should be moved to Queensgate, near the dumps and the Sewer District. You could fence them in on three sides with the Licking River, the Ohio River and the highway (US 50). It also wouldn't be close to any residential neighborhood.



Is that a colloquialism for the Mill Creek?

[PM Thor]

Snipe, I have absolutely no faith in Citylink. It's going to be a homeless mall? How in the heck are the homeless going to get there, they aren't driving or bussing there. They are going to go somewhere, namely, into the neighborhood. Also, I absolutely crack up at how they are leaving a HUGE section of the building for "future development". Guess what is going to go in there...a homeless mall, with no place for the homeless to stay, yet still with a couple of big ass room left empty..hmmm. Give me a second, I'll get it. Nope, can't figure it out.

I HATE dayton.

[Snipe]

Is that a colloquialism for the Mill Creek?

Yeah, got that one wrong. That is the Mill Creek, the licking is across the bay. And I know it isn't a bay either.

Put the homeless mall in Queensgate, bordered by the Ohio, Mill Creek and the expressway and close to the junkyards and Sewer District waste compounds. Nobody lives down there. I say put them down there and give them free beer to stay down there. No neighborhood wants them and I don't think any neigborhood could successfully absorb them. Poor neighborhoods do a really bad job of absorbing them

[Snipe]

Thor, I don't trust them either.

They say their mission has changed from a homeless mall to a center for the working poor. Instead of housing hundreds in a 100,000 square foot facility, they now claim they will be just advancing the cause of the working poor. Homeless insane drug addicted idiots vs. people that actually hold a job is a big difference. I like the new change.

I am actually all for the working poor. If someone has a job and a paycheck I can identify with them. Many of my tenants are paycheck to paycheck working poor, but that paycheck means something to me. They are working. Contrast that to a parasite who sucks off the public dole and I have no common ground with them. My Section 8 Tenants that I have had are the worst tenants possible. I have a lot of fine and decent people living down here with me, and right now they are struggling. If anyone is looking for a hire I got some good people looking for any work. And I mean any work. And not to be cynical, but if you have an affirmative action quota we have that covered. I can get you a black man with a good attitude that will show up to work with a smile and a nice demeanor if anyone wants to send me a PM. You can get that tomorrow. He is a laid off steel worker, and that great job isn’t never coming back. I have been trying to help him find work and carrying him on his rent. Great guy too. My wife loves him (hopefully not physically).

I don't mind CityLink if they have really changed their focus to help the working poor. I still don't trust them. When they wanted a 100,000 square foot homeless mall that set the community on fire. Nothing like that exists in the region. The Homeless exist today in a large part because we closed down state mental institutions in the 50s and 60s. Most of them are legitimately crazy, though medication exists that could help them be normal. The ACLU has fought for the right for a mentally unstable homeless person to be free of the mental institution and free of mandatory meds. So we have this crazy population that we used to control, and we could control them even now with time release med injections that make them mostly normal.

The medical advances for these people have come a long way, but we can't force those meds on them. And once the drug wears off, they think they are normal and want to fight anyone that would sedate them.

The state mental institutions released their crazies, and all of them gravitated to poor, inner city communities, which are mostly black communities. In Cincinnati right now the crazies hang out in Over the Rhine, near the Drop Inn Shelter. If you were a crazy and went to Hyde Park, the police would most likely transport you free of charge back to the core or crazies in OTR. Hospitals routinely send cabs to dump their indigents in Over The Rhine. Happens all the time. OTR is our dumping ground. But that is changing.

People want to revitalize OTR, and in doing so select a new place to dump the crazies. That is the crux of the whole argument. Where do you put them or place them? Who wants them? Nobody wants them.

We force the crazies on black communities, and then we blame the black communities on the crazies. The Black communities are fragile at it is, they don't need this huge influx of crazies. They have enough problems to deal with as it is. Lower class black America is indeed in dire straits, with 3 out four 4 children being born into bastard hands. The family is virtually non-existent. Do we need to dump the crazies on them too?

I think we need to do something about the crazies, the insane homeless population that needs medical care. I don't think these people should be allowed to roam untreated in poor black neighborhoods.

[Fred Garvin 2.0]

I can't wait til 3CDC dumps the trash in Snipe's hood. And I'd like to extend an olive branch to my black brethren that I'm at the beck and call for a hands-across-Linn St. torchathon.

Queensgate is a sewer and the West End is a wasteland. I say dump all the Lost Boys Snipe has no compassion for in his lap.

[Kahns Krazy]

between this and the flash mob thread your use of tildes in thread titles is off~the~charts impressive.

ftfy.

[paulxu]

Yes, it was all those "multi-culturists" that England let in that were responsible.

The tabloid Sun newspaper wrote in its opinion page on Thursday of the "sick" society described by Prime Minister David Cameron: "The sickness starts on welfare-addicted estates where feckless parents let children run wild."

But its front-page headline told a different story about the accused: "Lifeguard, postman, hairdresser, teacher, millionaire's daughter, chef and schoolboy, 11."

The Daily Mail reported: "While the trouble has been largely blamed on feral teenagers, many of those paraded before the courts yesterday led apparently respectable lives."

The upmarket Daily Telegraph devoted its page three to the case of Laura Johnson, the 19-year-old daughter of a company director who pleaded not guilty to stealing £5,000 ($8,000) of electrical goods, under the headline: "Girl who has it all is accused of theft."

The newspaper said she lived in a converted farmhouse in the leafy London suburb of Orpington, Kent, with extensive grounds and a tennis court, had studied at one of the best-performing state schools in the country and now attends the University of Exeter.

[bobbiemcgee]

....who pleaded not guilty to stealing £5,000 ($8,000) of electrical goods, under the headline: "Girl who has it all is accused of theft."

[/I]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_wUzslNorAAE/TQBdiQlTycI/AAAAAAAAAUc/YsBQUeF3pow/s1600/20101208_lol.jpg

had some repairs to make.

[waggy]

Can't Boehner pull some strings and get Snipe a job doing this professionally?

[Snipe]

Yes, it was all those "multi-culturists" that England let in that were responsible.

The tabloid Sun newspaper wrote in its opinion page on Thursday of the "sick" society described by Prime Minister David Cameron: "The sickness starts on welfare-addicted estates where feckless parents let children run wild."

But its front-page headline told a different story about the accused: "Lifeguard, postman, hairdresser, teacher, millionaire's daughter, chef and schoolboy, 11."

The Daily Mail reported: "While the trouble has been largely blamed on feral teenagers, many of those paraded before the courts yesterday led apparently respectable lives."

The upmarket Daily Telegraph devoted its page three to the case of Laura Johnson, the 19-year-old daughter of a company director who pleaded not guilty to stealing £5,000 ($8,000) of electrical goods, under the headline: "Girl who has it all is accused of theft."

The newspaper said she lived in a converted farmhouse in the leafy London suburb of Orpington, Kent, with extensive grounds and a tennis court, had studied at one of the best-performing state schools in the country and now attends the University of Exeter.

The rich white girl got an exclusive write up. She was driving past a shop with windows broken in and decided to get some flat screens. Her parents are millionaires. That story was covered in a "man bites dog" sort of way. You simply don't expect the wealthy to be part of the riots. She should be shamed, charged and incarcerated.

Do you know the demographics of the London riots? I don't. They don't seem to be reporting on the demographics. Perhaps demography has no influence in this. But who believes that? They don't report demographics all the time, and they do this for political reasons. Nothing to see here, move along. Here is a rich white girl that stole a TV. Did she beat anyone bloody or set a house on fire, or was she opportunistic and went for the greed factor.

Demographics aren't just about race and ethnicity either, Demographics also study political affiliations. If we ignore the racial, ethnic and religious demographics and concentrate on political orientation, how do you think these rioters tend to vote? What is their political persuasion? I am not waiting for your answer, because just to ask the question is to answer it.


But its front-page headline told a different story about the accused: "Lifeguard, postman, hairdresser, teacher, millionaire's daughter, chef and schoolboy, 11."

Even among your self selected data set, which I believe is not representative of the riot population, how many of these people are liberal vs. conservative? I think it is an interesting and honest question. I read a bit about the Chef. He was an organic chef that trashed a chain chicken restaurant. Now in theory an organic chef could be a conservative, and certainly good organic chefs can make decent middle class money and even beyond. But look at what he did, he trashed a business that seems antithetical to organic chefs of liberal ideals. A political conservative wouldn't do that. As far as I know he didn't even loot, he wanted just to destroy the chain store. You think that guy is a conservative?

I haven't looked all your cases up, but think of some of the others. Lifeguard? I have no idea what political affiliation most lifeguards are or even if they have a union in Britain. I know that some California lifeguards make $125,000 a year in the union on the State's payroll, and that they are staunch Democrats. If I had to lean one way or the other, I would guess he was a liberal and not a conservative.

Social Worker? Do we really have to go over this? Social workers are liberals by and large. I ain't making that up either.

Postman? A member of the postal union that decides to loot? I don't like his chances of voting against the welfare state. I bet he votes liberal.

Hairdresser? Hairdresser's are notorious for their conservative bent. I will give you that.

Teacher? As LH is famous for saying, "This has been covered". I wonder if he was up to date on his union dues. I wonder about his political affiliation. I guess we will never know. Chalk it up to being another surprising white guy in the riots. It obviously could have been any of us. Please!

Lets talk some demographics. Do you think the people involved in this riot were liberal or conservative? Were they likely to vote Labour or Tory? I think we all know the answer, and the answer is that I am a racist pig.

It was a multiracial riot. It started in black communities. It spread to Muslim communities. Now there is a huge thing brewing between the blacks and the Muslims in Britain. That is one of the inherent strengths of diversity. Diversity makes us stronger, we all know that. Then you had opportunistic liberal whites join in too. But these were not in equal proportion to the general population, and it is not proportional to the political representation.

Who is to blame? Obviously the capitalist and the racists like me. I would like to apologize to everyone for starting these riots. It was all my fault. If only I could have thought happy thoughts. For shame.

The English Defense League moved in to protect shops and tenements from burning, and they were quickly targeted and dispersed by police. We can't have people protecting homes and businesses from burning. What good would that do? More important to show that we dislike those white people in the English Defense League.

Nothing to see here, move along.

[Emp]

Welcome to Astroturf cut and paste thread #492.

It's always amusing to me when the descendants of mongrel Irish immigrants get all holier than thou about diversity, gangs and riots. As if brown or black folks have a historical corner on bad urban behavior. Irish gangs ruled portions of New York, Boston and other fine American metropolises for decades. It's still going on in Derry and Coleraine every marching season. Fine Irish descendants in the South -- and Indiana -- were prominent participants in the ultimate flash-mob, the lynch party in the 20th century.

Parsing out whether the criminals in these riots were conservative, liberal or labor is equally and absurdly hilarious. Let's look up their voting registrations. Oh wait, they don't vote because its absurd for street criminal types to worry about politics. Some folks so desperately need to slap a label on any social or political issue, to prove a preordained point.

[Snipe]

Is that what you said about Timothy McVeigh? Did You staunchly defend Rush Limbaugh from the absurdity of it all? Did you defend him from Bill Clinton's political opportunism? What about Anders Behring Breivik, did you defend the right after people labled that psychopath for being a right wing Christian? Was that all "absurdly hilarious"?

What general political party do these looters ascribe too? Can you guess? Does that matter? I can guess, and I would bet the house my guess is right on.

And why is this AstroTurf? Do you think someone else put me up to this? Do you understand what AstroTurf is? I don't think that you do. This is me. I have met you personally. We have had beers. Do you think some omnipotent organization with "real power" put me up to this post? You have known me on these boards for years. I am not a bot, but a real person in flesh and blood. I am not Dick Cheney's secret army. I am a landlord and property owner that graduated from Xavier University and who happens to live in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Please define AstroTurf for me if you want to keep saying it, at least in respect to my postings. I am not even a Republican to tell the truth. Never game a dime or registered to the party in all honesty. I will never give one dollar to any political organization. They keep tabs on that, and I don't trust my government. I wouldn't suggest that anyone else does either. You just can't trust them. Our government monitors all political activity, and someday that could be held against you. Every dollar that you give to any political organization in this country is publicly reported and part of your record for life, and it could affect you in ways you never imagined. Crazy talk! But they do keep track for a reason.

So what are you blabbering about Emp? Are these people not liberals? Do these populations not vote for Labour in Britain? Do you think they secretly might be a bunch of conservatives?

And what about the Tea Party Emp? I think you have had some choice words on them before. They didn't even riot, they just came together peacefully and you seems to dislike that and draw conclusions. Now that liberals have done their best to burn London, you resent any inference to political affiliation. What political affiliation do you honestly think these people have?

To ask that question is to answer it. You don't need to respond, but please do if you have the sack. Go run away and hide again.

[Porkopolis]

The vast majority of the rioters have the political intelligence of rocks. Some may use politics as an excuse but ultimately they just wanted to, as one silly kid put it, "join in the fun." My friends in South London were terrified as the rioting moved their way. Some are Labour, some Tory, several Lib-Dem and all were fearful; politics were not relevant.

[Snipe]

I don't deny that they aren't idiots, but then again most voting block liberals are idiots. What would you make of the "vast majority" of the people of Detroit having "the political intelligence of rocks"? I would bet the same rule would apply. Half of their people can't even read, and they vote too. If anyone was wondering, they tend to vote overwhelmingly Democrat. I hate repeating it, but to ask that question is to answer it again.

What about the "vast majority" of single mothers on welfare in public housing? I bet they have "the political intelligence of rocks" too! I am all for your theory of singling out people that can be characterized as having a "vast majority" with "the political intelligence of rocks". We need to single them out if the rest of us are to survive.

I also salute EMP speaking of mongrel blood. Mongrel blood indeed! Classic.

What about the people that participated in the Cincinnati Riots, and those that supported them? Wonder how they tend to vote?

You don't have to think long!

To ask the question is to answer it.

I bet the "vast majority" of those people had "the political intelligence of rocks".

That doesn't mean they don't vote though or continue to collect government benefits. Rocks or not, they and their rock intelligence offspring are here to stay as they continue to reproduce in greater and greater numbers.

Demography is destiny. London is our future. Burn baby burn.

[Snipe]

EMP, Another point that should be noted demographically is to note the demographics of the victims. Businesses were looted and burned. Buildings and tenements were burned.

Who burns their own business? Who burns the house that they own?

The people targeted by the riots were most likely conservative and the people engaging in the riots were most likely liberals. This fact alone sets the EMP's ass on fire.

But tell me who is telling the truth about this? Is it me, or is it the EMP. Am I jumping to conclusions?


Again, to ask the question is to answer it, and to ask the question at all means that you are a big bully, a white supremest, a mean spirited racist and all the other accolades.

Who were the victims? Property owners? Business owners? Many property owners and business owners are indeed liberals, but it is far from a majority.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/08/09/article-2024001-0D5CB5C100000578-825_642x603.jpg


Humiliation: A young man is forced to strip to his underpants in the street, having apparently already handed his T-shirt and trainers to a looter. There were unconfirmed reports last night of victims being made to strip in Deptford, south London, and in Birmingham (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2024001/UK-riots-2011-London-Birmingham-people-forced-strip-naked-street.html#ixzz1UqFUbMhA)

Now can we honestly tell who votes conservative and who votes liberal in this picture? No we can't. This is just one picture of two people, one of whom is a looter forcing a citizen to strip off all his clothes. Maybe these guys are both conservatives! Maybe the looter is a conservative and the humiliated man is a pompous liberal. Let's not jump to any judgements! If I was to jump to judgement though I would suggest to you that they both vote for British Labor. No self respecting conservative would loot, and no self respecting conservative would meekly strip and give away all his clothes. So it was a trick question after all, there was no conservative here!

I bet EMP would have gladly shed his knickers for the cause, and then blame the Tea Party, Dick Cheney, the legacy of the Bush Administration and Rush Limbaugh.

At some point fine and decent people need to band together and put and end to this. It doesn't look like government will come to the rescue to the innocent, so right thinking people need to develop other plans.

[Emp]

But look at what he did, he trashed a business that seems antithetical to organic chefs of liberal ideals. A political conservative wouldn't do that. As far as I know he didn't even loot, he wanted just to destroy the chain store. You think that guy is a conservative?

Nice projection, however convoluted. But if we are projecting, lets look at actual habits of conservatives......

No, conservatives NEVER exhibit antisocial behavior. Oh wait, the current PM and the Mayor of London are member of the Bullingdon Club, monied, trust-fund conservatives who twice annually book dinners in unsuspecting restaurants and pubs; absolutely trash the place; then calmly pay, usually in cash, for destroying the contents.

[Porkopolis]

No, conservatives NEVER exhibit antisocial behavior. Oh wait, the current PM and the Mayor of London are member of the Bullingdon Club, monied, trust-fund conservatives who twice annually book dinners in unsuspecting restaurants and pubs; absolutely trash the place; then calmly pay, usually in cash, for destroying the contents.

The same Mayor and PM, mind you, who felt returning to the country from their holiday abroad to deal with the worst rioting in 30 years was somehow not important.

[Snipe]

But look at what he did, he trashed a business that seems antithetical to organic chefs of liberal ideals. A political conservative wouldn't do that. As far as I know he didn't even loot, he wanted just to destroy the chain store. You think that guy is a conservative?

Nice projection, however convoluted. But if we are projecting, lets look at actual habits of conservatives......

No, conservatives NEVER exhibit antisocial behavior. Oh wait, the current PM and the Mayor of London are member of the Bullingdon Club, monied, trust-fund conservatives who twice annually book dinners in unsuspecting restaurants and pubs; absolutely trash the place; then calmly pay, usually in cash, for destroying the contents.

What are the odds that monied, trust fund conservatives were the base cause of these riots? What are the odds that conservatives had any hand it this at all?

Are some conservatives loony, or batshit crazy? Sure. These riots will only help that along as they see their country on fire.

I have never heard of the Bullingdon Club, and I don't even have much interest in them. They didn't cause these riots as far as I can tell, and no media has suggested that. They are not going to spring to pay for them either.

So you think the organic chef that trashes a chain store without even looting it for material gain could be both a conservative or a liberal. I suggested he just may be a liberal. I don't see him as a conservative, though at this point it doesn't matter to you The general political orientation of all these city burning riots means nothing to you. Again, what do you think of Timiothy McVeigh?



The same Mayor and PM, mind you, who felt returning to the country from their holiday abroad to deal with the worst rioting in 30 years was somehow not important.

Worst riot in 30 years? I wonder what happened then, 30 years ago? Could you give us some details and demographics of those riots? Was it those crazy conservatives rioting then too?

Is it the Mayor's and Prime Minister's fault that these riots happened? Britain didn't see this coming. Is this really the fault of conservatives? If they are conservative, should they and the conservative party be held to blame? That would be obtuse to say the least..

What about the rioters? Are they to blame? I think it is amazing the we are blaming conservative politicians for things that conservatives are not doing. I think that is beyond even Orwellian double think. Should we blame Obama for the Flash Mobs? If I did that I could only imagine what your response would be.

We should have some standards here. I don't think that these people perpetrating the riots are political conservatives. I don't think that at all is the case. I think we should be able to admit this if it is true. Am I wrong EMP? Am I misguided and factually incorrect? Do my sources not add up?

Do you really want to spend your credibility trying to negate that fact?

Wait, I forgot you didn't have any credibility. You spend your days peddling the delusional paradigms from the 1960s..

[Porkopolis]

Is it the Mayor's and Prime Minister's fault that these riots happened? Britain didn't see this coming. Is this really the fault of conservatives? If they are conservative, should they and the conservative party be held to blame? That would be obtuse to say the least..


The leaders don't deserve direct blame for the riots. But they certainly do deserve criticism for staying in Ibiza while their home city burned. I can understand not grasping the seriousness right away, but once rioting got to the point that it was obviously more than a minor civil disturbance they should have been on their way home. It took them several days and immense media pressure to make them live up to their responsibilities.

As for the race baiting and class warfare bits of your post, I'm just not even going to respond.

[PM Thor]

Britians laziest rioter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cbVW_QS2eE

I HATE dayton.

[Snipe]

I wish this guy was an American, because I would vote for him to be Predsident.

It is awesome: Britain is a riot (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pAC0YSmK0g&feature=player_embedded)

[Snipe]

As for the race baiting and class warfare bits of your post, I'm just not even going to respond.

I don't see the race baiting or class warfare. If their is an element of class warfare in these riots, it is probably coming from the rioters. Pointing out that the rioters were backers of the British Labour Party is not racist. Funny to hear a libby complain about class warfare. Hear our President lately?

[GuyFawkes38]

Just a fun song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzPbNvIzMf0

I used to think the song was odd. How can anyone be bored in London, arguably the greatest city on earth. If The Clash and company were bored living in London, they should have tried living in the Midwest.

Yet that seems to be the major cause of the riots. Pure boredom.

[XU 87]

Funny to hear a libby complain about class warfare. Hear our President lately?

If we just changed the depreciation schedules from 5 to 7 years on corporate jets, we'd be able to balance the budget.

[Kahns Krazy]

If we just changed the depreciation schedules from 5 to 7 years on corporate jets, we'd be able to balance the budget.

The corporate jet 'debate' makes my head asplode. So much ignorance of how the tax code and aircraft depreciation work.

[Strange Brew]

If we just changed the depreciation schedules from 5 to 7 years on corporate jets, we'd be able to balance the budget.

And if those of us in these 57 States would simply inflate our tires we could lower the price of gas.

[GoMuskies]

Here's some actual good parenting in the midst of the riots.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14582629

[Porkopolis]

Here's some actual good parenting in the midst of the riots.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14582629

Wow, that is some really tough love!

[Snipe]

America's 14 Most Ready to Riot Cities (http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/America-s-14-Most-Ready-to-by-Chaz-Valenza-110811-723.html)
By Chaz Valenza, OpEd News

You can read the article at the link to find Chaz Valenza's reasoning. I don't know much about Chaz Valenza outside of this article (short bio here (http://www.opednews.com/author/author23809.html)). He is an obvious leftist (communist/socialist) that has more of a problem with capitalism than violent riots. The man in the article seems chomping at the bit to watch things burn. I am mostly highlighting this because Cincinnati is on the list. I am also highlighting this because he gives it a statistical analysis that I thought was interesting.

Here is a summary of his list:


1. Detroit, MI
~Percentage of single-parent households: 67.1%

2. Miami, FL
~Percentage of single-parent households: 44.4%

3. Cleveland, OH
~Percentage of single-parent households: 58.6%

4. Memphis, TN
~Percentage of single-parent households: 50.0 %

5. New Orleans, LA: (Tie)
~Percentage of single-parent households: 55.0%

5. Buffalo, NY: (Tie)
~Percentage of single-parent households: 56.3%

6. Milwaukee, WI
~Percentage of single-parent households: 52.2%

7. St. Louis, MO
~Percentage of single-parent households: 57.9%

8. Baltimore, MD
~Percentage of single-parent households: 59.2%

9. Atlanta, GA
~Percentage of single-parent households: 60.4%

10. Cincinnati, OH
~Percentage of single-parent households: 55.9%

11. Long Beach, CA
~He did not give a percentage of single-parent households for this city

12. Newark, NJ
~Percentage of single-parent households: 56.9%

13. Philadelphia, PA
~Percentage of single-parent households: 50.1%


Note: These are his rankings as he gave them. #5 was a tie between New Orleans and Buffalo. He then gave a #6, which isn't good mathematical form but that is why the "list of 14" actually goes to 13. It is a small quibble which means little.

He includes much more statistical analysis. Even though he is an extreme lefty that hates capitalism, I liked his effort because he included statistical reasons that he could use to back us his assertions. I am willing to concede to his research on the facts, but not the interpretations of those facts.

For those who want the quick and dirty without clicking a link, this is his analysis of Cincinnati:


10. Cincinnati, OH:

"The explosion of violence in Cincinnati--the largest urban disturbance in the US since the 1992 Los Angeles riots--revealed the deep social tensions in every American city... The April riots underscored the most basic fact of life in America: the enormous social gulf that has opened up between the wealthy elite and the vast majority of the population." Jerry White, writing for the World Socialist Website about the roots of the riots that erupted in Cincinnati, Ohio in April of 2001, following the police killing of an unarmed black teenager, not a rumor, fact.


Percentage of single-parent households: 55.9%
17th U.S. city for police misconduct per capita
Unemployment 9.9%
Increase in food stamps (SNAP) use from 2007: 41.0%
Children in poverty: 40.9%



I find this whole thing interesting. It could be more true than you think.

Some musings:

He cites the increase in food stamp use as a probable cause in social unrest. Obama came in and expanded the food stamp program to unheard of proportions. We have people on the left that think both that we should expand this program and that it will ultimately lead to social unrest. Those people should perhaps have a fight against their own thoughts on how to form a civil socieity.

If you are wondering why I highlighted single parents, it is because I think that is important, and so does the leftist author. We just have different views on why that is and what that means.

If you are wondering where Cincinnati stands on this list if it were based just on the percentage of single parent families, Cincinnati would be eighth, up three spots from 11.

I live in the West End in Downtown Cincinnati. In my community we by and large don't have parents, we have parent, singular. We don't have traditional families. I think that the lower economic rungs of the black community have gotten worse and not better over the last 50 years, and it is now in a state of chaos and disrepair. If I could cite one source it would be government intervention and the the related breakdown of the black family. They are indeed related. The black man used to be a father figure. He used to put a roof over your head and food on the table. He was a respected father figure and a King in his home. Now Uncle Sam puts the food on the table with food stamps, and Uncle Sam pays for the roof over your head with housing subsidies, and black women have no use for black men. Those rejected black men do not have good outcomes. It doesn't surprise me either. The system is broken, and so is the black community. I blame government social policy for the fact that in the 60's less than 1 out of 4 children were born outside of a two parent home and that today it is 3 out of 4.

In fact, if you want to go to college for free, just be a woman and have a kid. That is what our government is basically saying. So the leftists promote policies that encourage single parent homes, and then they cite the evidence of the consequences of their own policies to make a point about how we will have civil unrest.

The whole system is broken. I fear it will all collapse. When it does, it won't be easy for the people that live on entitlements. Those people will riot. I can't see this going down any other way. I hope that I am wrong.

Another interesting thing is that this man never cites demographics of race. Of all the metrics that he uses, race is not considered a factor. But if you ranked cities likely to riot, the most obvious choice to me would be race. But the quick and dirty method is not allowed, so we have to obsess about "Single Parent Families" when we all really know what that means. If a conservative obsessed about single parent families without mentioning race, or "welfare queens" on food stamps he would be a racist who used "dog whistles". He would be cast out of polite society even if he never mentioned the "R" word. Look at these cities that could burn. This article is advanced from a leftist perspective. I didn't write it.

We live in interesting times. Will those riots come to America? My answer is not if but when.

I should qualify that though, because I lived through the riots in the West End the last time around. The simple truth is from my experience is that the riots never came to us. They were in Over The Rhine. Now OTR is just blocks away, but those blocks evidently made the difference. I heard gun shots for sure, but no riots here. Not burning buildings and looting, but we don't have any businesses left to loot by and large. Some white people were dragged out of their cars and beaten to a pulp in Over the Rhine, as were some construction workers. Bad things did happen, but I hope we can contain them to some else's neighborhood.

The hard part is thinking about how it all comes down and how the rioting starts. Will it start here, or will it start somewhere else and spread here? London was burning and then all of the sudden you had five other cities with riots. Will that happen here. The Cincinnati riots didn't spread to other cities. The worst case scenario is that we have a focal flash point incident that incites rioting all over the country and all of the cities on this list start to burn. Is that probable? I am not sure but I don't think so. Is that possible? I would have to answer yes. And if that happens, all bets are off.

Again "Not if but when" is my mantra on this. At some point these things are going to happen somewhere. How it plays out is the reality show that all of us will be watching and some of us will be experiencing on a personal basis.

[GuyFawkes38]

Seems like the press ignored alcohol.

A big difference between youth culture in the US and UK is alcohol. UK youth drink a ridiculous amount of it. They have more access to it. They don't have to drive because UK cities are dense and there's public transport everywhere.

I've been to London a few times and was struck each time by the binge drinking. In contrast, youth binge drinking is much more rare in the US and often occurs in controlled settings, like college.

Watch the UK version of Skins on netflix and be frightened for the future of the UK.

I didn't really hear the press touch upon the subject, but I wonder how many of the rioters were drunk.