October 24, 2014 3 Comments
During the summer, my attention was drawn to this newspaper report about a youth brawl on a Dublin beach. These riots have become something of an annual cultural event, typically involving about 100 youngsters . Last year, there was a heavy contingent of Africans involved in Portmarnock – easily observable from some of the video footage – though that went unmentioned in most media coverage. The thing that engaged my interest in this story, however, is the police response. We are told that “no arrests were made” though there was a Garda presence in this large, open space. What the police did do, however, was close the nearby train station for the day, impacting the many tourists and law-abiding citizens coming to visit.
Its a small example of a phenomenon I have grown interested in recently: anarcho-tyranny. It was memorably observed and named by the late columnist Sam T. Francis in 1992. Francis, writing on the state law and order under the modern managerial state he was so fond of studying, said “we refuse to control real criminals (that’s the anarchy) so we control the innocent (that’s the tyranny).” This leads to a situation where the housing projects of feral youths and minorities are left to themselves, while, according to Francis, there is rampant “criminalization of the law-abiding and innocent through exorbitant taxation, bureaucratic regulation, the invasion of privacy, and the engineering of social institutions.” One example might be gun control laws that have no impact on the criminal classes. This reaches true absurdity in a country like South Africa, where a white farmer is legally confined to having a shotgun with a certain number of shells in a country where gangs roam around with sub-machine guns.
A recent broadcast from John Derbyshire mentioned the relationship between this new method of governance and what happened in Rotherham, South Yorkshire, in regards to Muslim rape gangs. The ‘tyranny’ side of anarcho-tyranny places strong emphasis on enforcing multiculturalism and political correctness. Last year, when a woman in Liverpool was upset at Alan Sugar for making a relatively innocent joke about the Chinese, she wrote to the police saying “I thought racism was illegal” and called for his arrest. Cravenly, the police interviewed this woman three times (once for over an hour) and spent several days deliberating whether Sugar committed a hate crime. While I hope there were no actual crimes committed in Liverpool that week, it seems unlikely. In Rotherham itself, foster children were seized from a couple because they were members of the ‘racist’ UKIP.
Political correctness and light-touch policing in regards to protected minorities and the underclass was the root of the problem in Rotherham. We now know that about 1400 girls of white British extraction, primarily from the working classes, were pressed into sex slavery by Pakistani Muslims who saw them as sub-human. Now, if you’ve ever been to certain Muslim countries with a fair-haired companion of the female persuasion you’re probably aware you have to be careful (unless you are ideologically blinded, that is). In the discourse of ‘anti-racism’ and ‘diversity’ such differences are not meant to exist, but what is today called ‘anti-racism’ is built on a mountain of lies and reality denial. A Home Office employee who raised the alarm about the Asian Muslim gangs as early as 2001 was censured and forced to attend a “diversity course” to “raise her awareness of ethnic issues”. I can’t confirm whether or not the slogan War Is Peace. Freedom Is Slavery. Diversity Is Our Strength was inscribed on the wall. Big Brother comes down hard on naughty things like this incident of “racism”, but criminal gangs can be overlooked for years if they consist of Designated Victim Groups.
The South Yorkshire Police, by the way, had little trouble raiding Cliff Richard’s home over some alleged sexual impropriety almost 30 years ago.