Revolution in the making in the UK???

Originally posted by McGinty
However, while we're at it, please exemplify a case in point...

We don't have a dictatorship in Portugal now, and haven't had one since we ended the old one.

reply to post by ArMaP


Would you consider the Soviet Union a Dictatorship?

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by McGinty
However, while we're at it, please exemplify a case in point...

We don't have a dictatorship in Portugal now, and haven't had one since we ended the old one.

Was that a revolution, with involving the public on the masses / the mob, or was it a coup d'état?

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by ArMaP

 

Would you consider the Soviet Union a Dictatorship?

Yes, in that despite having replaced a corrupt hierarchy, it is itself, by all acoounts, a corrupt hierarchy over which the people have no true control (what with Putin changing the rules so he can remain as puppet master)

reply to post by McGinty


Now that Portugal's laws come out of Brussels, Portugal isn't even sovereign anymore.

They can pretend to be but they signed up to the EU - and that is where the power lies. Europeans now obey laws made by unelected bureaucrats who should not be making laws.

Some people are okay with this, but such people shouldn't be involved in politics.

reply to post by Exuberant1

Yes.

reply to post by McGinty


It started as a military coup d'état but the people decided to enter the process, against the organisers' plans and orders to "stay at home".

reply to post by Exuberant1


Our laws are still made by us, we even have some European directives that are not turned into laws, although we do have to follow what the EU says in some subjects.

reply to post by ArMaP


Do you think the EU is a good thing?

reply to post by Exuberant1


I think it can be (and in some aspects already is) a good thing, but we have to keep an eye on them.

For example, any group (with a minimum number of members) of EU citizens can present a motion to be debated on the EU parliament, and that is one thing that we cannot let "them" take from us, if we lose that possibility we will not be able to make ourselves noticed (unless we make some riots ).

It’s not a Revolution but a Delusion.

These kids have been plaguing the towns and cities even before these riots, they are not rioters as such but robbers and muggers who love to do this as a hobby.

These days it can be hard to go to the shop without some --ack Guy off his head intimidating staff and customers or standing outside shops making people feel unwelcome.

In my area they have now been caught, I have seen them robbing their own friends for their mobiles; I did think it was a playful act or joke as you know kids do. Now some of the people have been arrested for robbing people on trains and being intimidating. (Here in the UK)

The difference is that one of their own bad boys was shot and killed by the police, and they used this as revenge to rob and burn shops and cars.

Secondly the police did nothing when it broke out and they let it happen.

Black youths and Hoodies are now hated even more by society or can not be trusted.

Now it spread to Birmingham and other cities and 3 young Muslims got rundown and killed for protecting their community, sympathy goes out to them.

Another guy from Malaysia was mugged and was caught on camera and became a internet sensation.

Now they say we need stricter laws.

An internet petition about bringing the death penalty was making headlines a few days before and made the papers.

Sharia Law fanatics in London posting their Islamic proper gander makes people maybe agree that it could be useful in some areas.

The politicians were on holiday, the nation demanded their help, never seen Boris Johnson so much in demand.

Does anyone see the picture yet?

Now give some money to the Black Somalians who are being driven from their homes from an Islamic regime bringing the laws that only suit them and on top of that the curse of the worst drought in six decades, with an international threat of privacy and kidnapping from this country.

What are people thinking? Bit of a conundrum on the emotions of the time.

Here are two articles that I think raise some good points in relation to the riots and rioters:

THE riots in London and elsewhere in Britain are a backhanded tribute to the long-term intellectual torpor, moral cowardice, incompetence and careerist opportunism of the British political and intellectual class. They have somehow managed not to notice what has long been apparent to anyone who has taken a short walk with his eyes open down any frequented British street: that a considerable proportion of the country's young population (a proportion that is declining) is ugly, aggressive, vicious, badly educated, uncouth and criminally inclined.

Unfortunately, while it is totally lacking in self-respect, it is full of self-esteem: that is to say, it believes itself entitled to a high standard of living, and other things, without any effort on its own part. Consider for a moment the following: although youth unemployment in Britain is very high, that is to say about 20 per cent of those aged under 25, the country has had to import young foreign labour for a long time, even for unskilled work in the service sector. The reasons for this seeming paradox are obvious to anyone who knows young Britons as I do.

No sensible employer in a service industry would choose a young Briton if he could have a young Pole; the young Pole is not only likely to have a good work ethic and refined manners, he is likely to be able to add up and -- most humiliating of all -- to speak better English than the Briton, at least if by that we mean the standard variety of the language. He may not be more fluent but his English will be more correct and his accent easier to understand. This is not an exaggeration. After compulsory education (or perhaps I should say intermittent attendance at school) up to the age of 16 costing $80,000 a head, about one-quarter of British children cannot read with facility or do simple arithmetic. It makes you proud to be a British taxpayer. I think I can say with a fair degree of certainty, from my experience as a doctor in one of the areas in which a police station has just been burned down, that half of those rioting would reply to the question, "Can you do arithmetic?" by answering, "What is arithmetic?"

British youth leads the Western world in almost all aspects of social pathology, from teenage pregnancy to drug taking, from drunkenness to violent criminality. There is no form of bad behaviour that our version of the welfare state has not sought out and subsidised. British children are much likelier to have a television in their bedroom than a father living at home. One-third of them never eat a meal at a table with another member of their household -- family is not the word for the social arrangements of the people in the areas from which the rioters mainly come. They are therefore radically unsocialised and deeply egotistical, viewing relations with other human beings in the same way as Lenin: Who whom, who does what to whom. By the time they grow up, they are destined not only for unemployment but unemployability.

For young women in much of Britain, dependence does not mean dependence on the government: that, for them, is independence. Dependence means any kind of reliance on the men who have impregnated them who, of course, regard their own subventions from the state as pocket money, to be supplemented by a little light trafficking. (According to his brother, Mark Duggan, the man whose death at the hands of the probably incompetent police allegedly sparked the riots, "was involved in things", which things being delicately left to the imagination of his interlocutor.) Relatively poor as the rioting sector of society is, it nevertheless possesses all the electronic equipment necessary for the prosecution of the main business of life; that is to say, entertainment by popular culture.

And what a culture British popular culture is! Perhaps Amy Winehouse was its finest flower and its truest representative in her militant and ideological vulgarity, her stupid taste, her vile personal conduct and preposterous self-pity. Her sordid life was a long bath in vomitus, literal and metaphorical, for which the exercise of her very minor talent was no excuse or explanation. Yet not a peep of dissent from our intelllectual class was heard after her near canonisation after her death, that class having long had the backbone of a mollusc.

Criminality is scarcely repressed any more in Britain. The last lord chief justice but two thought that burglary was a minor offence, not worthy of imprisonment, and the next chief justice agreed with him. By the age of 12, an ordinary slum-dweller has learned he has nothing to fear from the law and the only people to fear are those who are stronger or more ruthless than he. Punishments are derisory; the police are simultaneously bullying but ineffectual and incompetent, increasingly dressed in paraphernalia that makes them look more like the occupiers of Afghanistan than the force imagined by Robert Peel. The people who most fear our police are the innocent. Of course, none of this reduces the personal responsibility of the rioters. But the riots are a manifestation of a society in full decomposition, of a people with neither leaders nor followers but composed only of egotists.

The duty of journalists is to tell the truth. If we don't do that, it's the equivalent of a nurse comfortably chatting over a nice cup of tea while an empty saline drip feeds air into a patient's artery. The moment that we think it's more important to protect some comfortable ideological dogma is the moment when our particular patient, truth, begins to die. I take no pleasure in what follows; but there is a job to be done, so here goes.

Perhaps the most astounding element in the British television coverage of the riots over much of England has been the steadfast refusal to mention the race of most of the rioters. They are clearly, and overwhelmingly, Afro-Caribbean, the descendants of immigrants, though such has been the utter British failure to integrate so much of the immigrant population that many have retained something of a Caribbean accent. Admittedly, not all of the rioters are "black": clearly, some white youths have joined in.

But where they have not got race is common, they probably have another feature that joins them: absent father-figures. An astonishing number of young males in London are the sons of single mothers. They have been raised without the presence of a male authority figure to impose familial order, and furthermore and most vitally, to promote the patriarchy.

Contrary to what the feminist mantra of recent decades has proposed, the patriarchy was not invented to oppress woman, but devised by Abraham to control men. Adolescent males, without an imposed order, are as feral as chimpanzees. This is why all societies have adopted rigorous means of imposing authority on teenage boys, and which always requires male authority-figures: either sergeant-majors or patriarchs or that unfashionable thing, "dads".

But Britain, like Ireland, went down the insane path of encouraging single mothers to have children: indeed, both societies actually created additional incentives for unmarried women to reproduce. It is social lunacy, delinquency turned into state policy, to encourage women to bear a population of young males without fathers. Yet that is what our two islands have been doing in a weak-minded, abject capitulation to the feminist ideological dogma that men are really redundant in the family. Yet the statistics across the world show that the single mother is far more likely to raise a criminal, a thug or rapist, than the married mother. No fewer than 70pc of young offenders in Britain are from single-parent families. It is not mere "poverty" that produces the socially dysfunctional male, so much as father-free families.

Moreover, in all societies in the world where Afro-Caribbeans have settled, there is a problem with male teenage gang culture. That being the case -- for whatever reason -- it makes no sense whatever to "reward" single mothers of that background for having boys without a father-figure to control them. The facta are known: black children of single mothers are twice as likely to commit crime as black children with two parents. Nearly 60pc of London's Afro-Caribbean mothers are single. If the allure of the male hierarchy in a gang on the street proves irresistible, then ahead awaits social disaster.

There is a third element. Immigration: not of the parents or grandparents of the young males currently dismantling London and other cities, but more recent immigration, much of it white, that prevents young natives, of any ethnic background, getting jobs. There are some 10,000 unemployed in Tottenham -- though the moronic oxymoron term "jobseeker" is now the fashionable term to describe the unemployed. No doubt many want jobs -- for every job vacancy in Tottenham there are 54 applications -- but it is surely gilding the lily to describe every single dole-taker (whether he is in Britain or here) as someone really seeking employment. But that aside, in the past 10 years under the egregious and depraved policies of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, an already overcrowded Britain took in over two million immigrants. Where have the jobs gone? That's where.

Six years ago, I wrote a column for 'The Irish Times' about the riots then erupting across immigrant areas in France and Britain. Michael D Higgins TD issued a statement in which he said: "The contents of his column today go beyond his usually crafted cowardice, staying one step on the safe side of prosecution for incitement to hatred or racism." "Usually crafted cowardice", eh? Is cowardice really a characteristic of my journalism? And that's before we even come to the delightful implication of racist intent. So, is it remotely surprising that we never had any proper discussion about immigration, if a future presidential candidate of this Republic could feel free to use such vile and actionable language about a critic of our immigration non-policies?

Immigration did not cause our collapse, but the refusal to create an immigration policy was an intellectual companion to our populist failure to control our banks. And no one can deny this unassailable truth: our unemployment figures have been made immeasurably worse by the large numbers of immigrants who poured unchecked into the Celtic Tiger economy. Finally, if you want to know what a combination of failed immigration and social policies can produce, why, just watch the TV news from London tonight. - Kevin Myers

www.theaustralian.com.au...

www.independent.ie...

reply to post by MortlitantiFMMJ


It only makes sense if you live long enough to study the problem, to have insight takes a few years and the normal hardworking people to be honest are too busy to make these calculations.

When the news comes on it tells you the problem of the day but you never really know why it really happens it takes a lot of research and memory to try and figure out why it went down this path and in some way if things are orchestrated you really would not know the difference before it is too late.

The football hooligan problem has been solved so why not put up the student fees and let immigrants take the jobs the youths should have been doing and while they are at it any collateral damage from international affairs will be part of the whole package to fill the void of what was at least a few good years of peace.

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by McGinty

 

It started as a military coup d'état but the people decided to enter the process, against the organisers' plans and orders to "stay at home".

Good for Portugal.

I think it's clear though that Portugal's shift in power wasn't what we'd generally call a revolution. It was initiated by those already within the establishment - as you say, a coup d'état, which had the people's support.

A genuine revolution is initiated by the people as, commonly, a violent uprising.

A violent uprising is indeed what we saw in the UK riots - whether it's is a revolution only time, and those who write history will say...

Originally posted by McGinty
I think it's clear though that Portugal's shift in power wasn't what we'd generally call a revolution. It was initiated by those already within the establishment - as you say, a coup d'état, which had the people's support.

And more than support on the following days, most of the members of the political police were detained by the people, without revenge being directed to them (besides some knocks on the back of their heads ).

What a revolution needs to be effective and "clean" is a good organisation, so even a popular uprising can be like that, if its carefully planed to get the support of all (or at least most) of the population, when the establishment sees that the whole population supports the regime change they see that they cannot do a thing to stop it, at least on that point in time (that's why we had two attempts at counter-revolution).

reply to post by ArMaP


I'll certainly concede that you've convinced me there is certainly more than one kind of revolution.

In my defence my original protest was to the narrow minded comment (not yours that the English riots were plain and simple criminality and therefore not a revolution.

This is impossible to judge, since often the only course of action, or the common course of action, left to an oppressed population will necessarily be deemed by the establishment as criminal action. This is how the establishment insulate themselves from the masses at their feet; by criminalising their forms of protest.

So when they have no effective forms of legal protest left, the masses will eventually resort to the criminalised forms and once they are in criminal territory, then one form of criminality morphs very easily into another. Thus outrage at what's believed by a minority to be an illegal police shooting can quickly become widespread looting.

However, in this case something more insidious may be afoot: The establishment has emphasised low police levels were the cause of this particular looting phenomina and their clever rhetoric (saying they must cut the police numbers, while acknowledging the problem) they have joe public asking them for more police. Reminds me of the US people demanding that Bush attack the Middle East after 911 - a scenario we now know the New Conservatives planned for a long time.

For me the smoking gun here is that the police stood off from the rioters, giving them the freedom to loot at will. Was this really due to low man power, or were they creating a scenario that will inevitably allow the establishment to pass new laws restricting our freedoms and privacy even more so?

It's those like the outraged post i originally replied to that will facilitate these stricter draconian laws - playing into the hands of the of greedy f**kers at the top the heap...

Its not a Revolution because the people who are doing this can not even speak proper English, I would not want the country to be dictated by teens who want a plasma TV for free, it is a rebellion which is big difference.

Originally posted by McGinty
However, in this case something more insidious may be afoot: The establishment has emphasised low police levels were the cause of this particular looting phenomina and their clever rhetoric (saying they must cut the police numbers, while acknowledging the problem) they have joe public asking them for more police. Reminds me of the US people demanding that Bush attack the Middle East after 911 - a scenario we now know the New Conservatives planned for a long time.

I agree, there's something strange about the way the riots were handled on the second (and following) night. The police could have been taken by surprise on the first night, but they should know how to react on the second and the third shouldn't have happened.

The night before last, i waited eagerly for BBC's 'Question time' with David Dimbleby.
To say that the pannel completely missed the point was an understatement! The audience weren't that switched on either and i did wonder whether i had wasted my time watching it in the first place. However, the best was yet to come. I could not help, but spit my wine out all over the place, when the next thing on tv after that was 'One flew over the cookoos nes't with Jack Nicolson. Is their a subliminal message in there somewhere? Is that how it will end up with the disposest of our society in a few years time? What a terrible thought?!!!
To top it all Cameron is bringing in a top Police Chief from the states and now wants their advise!

I think this government should do the honerable thing and stand down!!!

reply to post by happinness


Unfortunately, the government does not know the meaning of the word honour, it is a concept alien to them.