Riots in London after criminal is killed by police

[Von List]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gU5TcTSa9kk

Starkey gets it right. Notice how the white liberal starts to flog himself in front of the black woman in order to look good.

[we hope you die]

I love how the other two both immediately fail to grasp the point he's making more through fear of appearing racist than through stupidity.

[Cargést]

That bloke who wrote the "chav" book is a fucking moron, though.  He believes that the word "chav" is synonymous with the term "lower/working class person".  It's not.  It's synonymous with the term "chav".

[Von List]

I love how Starkey is simply trying to point out the *fact* that black subculture favors criminal activity and holds up a negative outlook on education, and the the two idiots pretty much just cover their ears and hum.

[Conservationist]

Diversity is tearing apart the UK and USA. It just fails every time. it fails for minorities just as much as it fails for white people.

[hoodwink]

I love how Starkey is simply trying to point out the *fact* that black subculture favors criminal activity and holds up a negative outlook on education, and the the two idiots pretty much just cover their ears and hum.

also, nothing said by either the self-righteous cunt or the worm in the oxford shirt was an actual rebuttal to Starkey's points.  right, wrong or indifferent, those two proles heard something that could be construed as racist and immediately lost themselves in a haze of reflexive liberal bullshit.  whether Starkey is a bigot or just engaging in what he termed "plain speak," their arguments did nothing to weaken his case, no matter how hard they tried to convince the audience he was just a bitter white supremacist ailing against diversity.  

one of the crucial problems in this whole multicultural movement is that the opposition aren't being listened to - their arguments are (rather conveniently) tossed into the pile like so much right wing rhetoric so that the diversity crusaders, who have nothing more to say than repeating the conceit that we're all one big community, can ignore credible arguments against their position.  guilty white people have been brow-beaten to the point of thinking that any utterance involving a black person that isn't fawning is completely off-limits to anyone other than black people.  I see no reason to believe this will change anytime soon and in fact is more likely to get much worse.

[Conservationist]

one of the crucial problems in this whole multicultural movement is that the opposition aren't being listened to

Let's hear the long list of liberal movements that have listened to their opposition.

(crickets)

Not to be glib about it, but when your ideology is absolute morality of the individual, you have zero tolerance for any other viewpoint.

I don't really have a problem with that per se, except when it is hypocritical. Preach tolerance, endorse pogromism. Errr....

[scourge]

I love how Starkey is simply trying to point out the *fact* that black subculture favors criminal activity and holds up a negative outlook on education, and the the two idiots pretty much just cover their ears and hum.

That isn't a fact but a cruel distortion of the facts. Diversity does not work because all people are not universally interchangeable.

If we put the wrong parts into a particular machine it will quickly break down. The breaking down result does not necessarily indicate any of the parts are defective. All we would know at that point is the mechanic is incompetent.

If we take operating system code from Linux and integrate it into Windows, Windows will eventually malfunction. That doesn't mean any of the Linux code was faulty. It means the moron integrating Linux code into Windows, like our egalitarian humanists, is an unwitting (although at this late stage I have my doubts) saboteur, not a programmer.

[Olestra]

Race and culture are an element of these riots but I don't think they were a major catalyst.

The problem is that the UK has a large degenerate underclass that is incapable of/does not want to operate within the 'rules' of liberal democracy. Some of the more capable individuals end up as successful criminals (something for the rest to aspire to) while others are propped up by our welfare system. The best that civilized society has to offer is a life serving Big Macs so in a sense is it any surprise that so many turn to crime?

I think that Starkey has clumsily (if not inaccurately) pointed out that what has historically been considered a black sub culture has now been adopted by the entire underclass. The black underclass sub culture has assimilated the underclass whites, asians etc.

Of course the unrest has been blown out of proportion because we have become so precious and fixate ourselves on every individual tragedy and the police seem to lack control because every rioter has an encyclopedia of human rights to consider. We have all been taught how wonderful our liberal democracy is and therefore such flagrant disregard for law and order seems shocking. In terms of the actual level of threat to the established order they barely register.

Starkey touches on another important point - that the primary motivation of the rioters was consumerism. This can be distinguished from the traditional crime of the poor classes which is aimed at fulfilling basic need of hunger. We have created a generation of consumers but some of them do not have the talent or wits to obtain these products by conventional means so they resort to thievery,

It's just another symptom of a society with no goals.

[we hope you die]

Two points:

The fact that the riots were focused on the acquisition of none essential goods such as TVs and shoes does indeed show that there is a general lack of direction in society beyond materialism. The fact that this seems to be the sign of success in society has led some people to obtain it by violent means.

Secondly, one of the hidelines on the BBC homepage now has some politicians and commentators arguing that the sentences for rioters are too harsh. You really can't have it both ways.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14553330

[Olestra]

Two points:

The fact that the riots were focused on the acquisition of none essential goods such as TVs and shoes does indeed show that there is a general lack of direction in society beyond materialism. The fact that this seems to be the sign of success in society has led some people to obtain it by violent means.

Secondly, one of the hidelines on the BBC homepage now has some politicians and commentators arguing that the sentences for rioters are too harsh. You really can't have it both ways.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14553330

This jumped out at me from the quotes in that article:-

Andrew Neilson, of the Howard League for Penal Reform, said: "A four-year sentence would normally be associated with offences such as holding someone up at knife point, grievous bodily harm, sexual assault, and I'm not sure that the offence in question was really related to those types of offences."

Too true - four years for holding someone at knife point, GBH or sexual assault is ridiculously low. If we're going to spend money imprisoning dangerous criminals let's do try to do it effectively!

The problem is that in Europe every sex offender, thief, thug, rapist and murderer is a precious snowflake with an endless list of unalienable human rights. This further increases the cost of imprisoning criminals. Oh wait - we can't afford to imprison people! So that paedophile who fiddled with a 5 year old a few years ago? He's now living next door to you and your family.

Events such as the riots demonstrate how divided a western country such as the UK is with regards to a clear direction forward. Starkey has caused an absolute shit storm with his comments and the hypocritical left wing media establishment is out in force demanding that Starkey be banned from airing his views, hung by black people etc. Despite the shit cake the general public is constantly being fed by the BBC and the rest of the left wing media, my anecdotal experience is that most Brits would have some sympathy with the general point Starkey tried to put across - which is basically that there is a degenerate underclass culture in Britain which is largely influenced by black pop culture.
 
I'm constantly being sent links to articles written by some wet blanket at the Guardian who is wagging a finger at the rest of us for 'failing' these disaffected youths. The left simply can't accept that we have a largely biological underclass - these people are the pond scum of our nation. We shift them off to ghettos (where they will hopefully commit crimes as far away from our middle class suburbs as possible) and keep them on welfare in the hope that they will be content to live out a relatively quiet life of cheap booze, fags, TV and scratch cards. The left will fail because they don't realise that these people are slaves. The mainstream right have been dragged so far left that they don't have anything meaningful to say - they want longer custodial sentences until they realise the expense of doing so.

[Olestra]

Here is Owen Jones' web page on the Guardian webite (the other white guy in the Starkey interview):-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/owen-jones

His favourite artists are Coldplay, 0peth and Jay Z.

[Conservationist]

The problem is that the UK has a large degenerate underclass that is incapable of/does not want to operate within the 'rules' of liberal democracy.

Because the rules of liberal democracy are paradoxical, perhaps?

It may be a symptom of a society with no goals, but part of that is multiculturalism, which guarantees perpetual majority/minority conflicts. Ethnic homogeneity is where it's at. If you don't have ethnic homogeneity, you have no shared values and your society ALWAYS degenerates into anarchy.

Feel free to name exceptions. It's a null list.

[Transilvania]

This is more or less a 100x worse Stalinist regime. Not only is it catering to the lower-class masses, it is self-perpetuating because the masses only become bigger and stupider as time goes on.
It's like an infectious protist colony in our bodies that we keep feeding because it would be "unfair" to let it die off.

[Cargést]

Almost as soon as the ship was unleashed into the waters, it started sinking.  Two groups formed out of those on board.  The minority said "Go back!  Swim to the shore!", but were shouted down.  Those who most loudly proclaimed "Come, this is no problem - let us simply remove the water as it builds up!" were raised above their peers.  The minority shook their heads, and, one by one, they deserted the ship to swim back.  Those who remained, remained only to try to persuade the others of the futility of their attempts, though they, too, eventually fled, for their own safety.

As the ship sailed on, the water began to seep in faster and faster.  The efforts of those on board were not enough to stem the flow of water dragging them down.  However, even as they waded up to their knees on the top deck, they were adamant in their desire to keep going forward, driven by the rhetoric of those more equal than them.  Finally, the ship sank completely, taking all aboard down into the waters with it.  Those who had swum back to the shore could only look on in dismay, as those they had set off with disappeared into the depths.

"Never again shall we attempt to build a ship without a hull".