Tuesday, August 9, 2011

English Immigrant Underclass Riots: Who Benefits

The imaginative convent girls over at Aangirfan raise the possibility (and here) that the riots now spreading through Britain's major urban centers -- London, Liverpool, Birmingham, Bristol -- may not have been so spontaneous as the media has so far generally assumed. We have seen how social destabilization in the Middle East and North Africa has been driven by an organized storm of Tweeting and other forms of digital networking, mostly in the English language oddly enough, assisted surely by agents provocateurs on the ground. Should we dismiss the possibility of something similar in England?

The Australian reports:
THE destruction in dozens of parts of London began to look like the first "BlackBerry riots" yesterday, with gangs using the smartphones to co-ordinate some of their targets for looting and burning.

Instant messages sent on BlackBerry devices brought a 100-strong mob to pillage the Tesco store at Bethnal Green, while nobody touched the larger Tesco in the low-income area of Hackney, barely 200m from the spot where the third day of rioting began with a broad-daylight attack on a police car.

The use of social media and BlackBerry messages to identify targets led many politicians to characterise the rioting as a coherent operation, casting it as a deliberate protest against police brutality, government spending cuts and high unemployment.

The view looked very different at street level, where it was evident that the driving force of the riots was a brutal mob mentality: diverse, opportunistic and terrifyingly unpredictable.
A riot, characterized by politicians as a "coherent operation" sparking a "brutal mob mentality," to which the police responded only slowly and inadequately, certainly raises questions. Questions that seem to make the left distinctly uncomfortable. The Guardian is quick to reassure its readers, who might otherwise suffer the terrible experience of having to hold someone morally responsible for their actions, that "Tottenham's young people are rioting because they see no future."

Likewise, mass immigration advocate and former UK ambassador, Craig Murray, comforts his blog followers with the assurance that this "is not a race issue," which I suppose it's not if, like Murray, you believe that there is no such thing as the British race, or therefore, presumably, any race at all, other than one happy, equal and identical human race.

But if the left are uncomfortable, is the right in any way benefited?

Quite possibly.

Although the British media are generally reluctant to mention it, the riots are essentially an insurrection by a largely immigrant, frequently criminal, almost totally ignorant, usually welfare dependent, unemployed underclass. The vast majority of the indigenous people of Britain believe that these people have been foisted upon them by an arrogant ruling elite answerable only to the monied interest, which sees mass immigration as the way to break the power of trades unions, drive down wages and solve the servant problem.

As the Daily Mail reported on August 5th, the day before the Tottenham riot started:
Nearly three quarters of Britons think there are too many immigrants in the country, a survey revealed yesterday.

Fears: Seven in 10 Briton believe there are too many immigrants in the country and an even higher proportion believe they are having a negative impact on public services
Fears: Seven in 10 Briton believe there are too many immigrants in the country and an even higher proportion believe they are having a negative impact on public services

Some 76 per cent of those questioned said immigration had put too much pressure on hospitals, transport services and schools.

The poll exposes the huge on-going scale of public worry over migration levels in recent years.

Under Labour’s open door immigration policy, the population was boosted by more than 3.2million arrivals from overseas.

Home Secretary Theresa May has made clear her determination to reduce net migration to the ‘tens of thousands’.
But then, the Mail report continues with this absurdity:
But the task of the coalition government in trying to get migrant numbers down to manageable levels has been made harder by a recent spike in new arrivals.
Interpretation: The immigrant flood cannot be stemmed, because, well, it's a flood.

In fact, the immigrant flood cannot be stemmed because the British have been indoctrinated since the time of the government of Ted Heath, a totalitarian in conservative's clothing, that to proclaim Britain as the home of the British people, open to immigration only in accordance with the democratic will of the people, is to reveal oneself as an far-right-wing extremist and racist: racist and far-right-wing extremist being the terms consistently applied by the liberal-left as synonyms for opponent to mass immigration.

This leaves British politicians in a difficult situation. To flout the wishes of the majority of the population on the issue of immigration, at a time when Britain's major urban centers including the capital London, are being taken over by immigrants, is becoming increasingly difficult, and is certainly unconstitutional.

However, to breach the psychological edifice that has been created to thwart the democratic will also presents hazards.

For the left to do it, as some are contemplating, will generate howls of betrayal from the immigrant community that comprises a large part of their electoral base, as well as huge disphoria among the more indoctrinated elements of the white lib-left.

For the right to do it, means defying the monied interest and facing the endless and hate-filled taunts of racist and fascist from the left.

What, then, to do? Spark a massive race riot, hold the police back until the thing is blazing across the nation, then use the disaster as the rationale for necessary restraint on immigration, thereby establishing a populist base for the right?


  1. Excellent analysis. These events certainly help sections of the 'right' wing.

    - Aangirfan.

  2. Shut up, powellite cunt.

  3. Ah! Some intelligent comment by an anonymous orofice (AO).

    But is the AO aware that it was Enoch Powell, in 1964, who opened Britain to large scale Afro-Carribean immigration? Probably not.

    And did Powell think he had done the right thing. Apparently not, since he became a forceful and even violent critic of commonwealth immigration to Britain.

    but then Powell was a strange man. At one point, it is said, he convinced himself that Jesus Christ was not crucified, but stoned to death. But then who knows.

  4. Why, really. It's political correctness gone mad.