The riots were a response to the confluence of migration, selective policing, multiculturalism and the concessions made to islamic activists by the British state.
Pontificating about the riots is pointless. No need to condemn them. No dissident will ever win any credit for doing so and we should stop playing the regime's game. The riots were, and are, a reaction by a people with an exceptionally grim future in their own homeland. We weaken ourselves by supporting the regime's narrative that anti-regime violence is inexcusable and that conflict with hostile migrant communities is the ultimate evil.
The riots were not ideological and there is next no evidence of the Far Right being involved in any way. The UK Far Right is moribund and irrelevant. The BNP fell apart years ago and the EDL has been inactive for quite a while. Tommy Robinson is essentially a social media influencer, a very useful foil for the UK regime. But practically all of the violence has involved spontaneous outbreaks of frustration by the ethnic English. We are now seeing a counter-mobiiisation by Pakistanis and the extreme Left.
The significance of the riots will unfold over time but they have the capacity to destroy Starmer's government. Thatcher was removed in the wake of the poll tax riots. Starmer's clumsy and provocative response so far is a serious long term political liability. In the short term Starmer will be used to push through authoritarian measures (all of which would have been in the planning stage anyway) but if the riots persist he will be removed.
The value of the riots for rw dissidents is that the regime will double down on repression and speed the delegitimation of the entire political order. The coming crackdown will further empower Muslim thugs who have been reshaping the political landscape to suit themselves. In recent years one MP was murdered by Muslims. Another was compelled to resign in fear for his life. Starmer is certain to escalate the recruitment of Muslims into the judiciary, police and intelligence services and to pour funds into MusIim NGOs.
Further communal violence is guaranteed. A post-bourgeois, deindustriakised, society cannot sustain genteel political norms. Nor is there any good reason why it should. England is adapting to change. The riots are merely a part of this process.
Observing these English people who actually rioted, they are not even the working class, they come from the toothless class.
Low level dependent manual jobs you would call "blue collar" are mostly covered by immigrants.
British working in low skilled jobs are either unionised, and thus largely pro-Labour and caricatural liberals (in the sense they try very hard and very clumsily to virtue signal against their interest), or white-van men who are more of independent thinkers, but are affluent.
People with substandard employment in the gig economy (working in supermarkets, have part-time contracts with recruitment agencies, etc) and the unemployed, they are lumpen and it was them who ransacked the stores in Manchester.
That said, how come the toothless did manage to "spontaneously" organise marching in the streets for multiple days? Don't believe it's something akin to the gilets jaunes of a few years ago in France, which were well coordinated politically. The analogous of the Gilets Jaunes would have been the white-van men taking to the street which obviously didn't happen, just look at the footage of the people involved.
I am leaning more towards these English riots having been astroturfed with the intent to justify a massive incoming repression against the "hard right".
From what you write it seems to me that we are witnessing changes in the class system of the UK. Indigenous whites without significant trade skills are confined to an underclass that resent preferential treatment of non-white migrants and refugees, above all two tier policing. The British state has a patron/client relationship with both the non-white welfare dependents and the non-white working class.
The UK is functioning as a North Atlantic version of California. It is a laboratory for social engineering with a focus on population replacement, repression and the management of class and ethnosectarian rivalries.
You sketch a fairly accurate portrait of the situation, however it's not much of a novelty.
Seems to me British elites have retained the mindset of having to administrate a multiethnic, intercontinental empire, only without colonies, and everyone of every ethnicity concentrated within the British Isles. They just don't know how to govern an ethnically homogeneous nation state in a contemporary liberal legal framework of rights of men, individual freedoms etc. Last time they had to lord over a homogeneous nation was a few centuries ago, in the early-modern era, when they could use divine right + magna charta to grant aristocrats some leeway.
Is it really unreasonable to be cool with open borders, or at least significantly more open borders, for the rest of the world, *other than for* both the Muslim world and Sub-Saharan Africa?
Shame on me? They're plagued by drug cartels, corruption, and perpetual regime change. As for Indians the top 10% are useful but the masses don't even know how to use a toilet and rape dogs so often that it causes widespread disease. I'm not very happy about it but the entire global south is a mess, the only place decent civilizations developed were temperate climates.
Well, that’s the thing. Latin Americans leave their worst traits behind them once they move to the US. They are much less homicidal over here than they are in Latin America, for instance.
As for India, a lot of the proles there are uneducated as fuck, but then again, our own proles also believed in stupid shit several centuries ago, such as burning witches. The goal is to educate Indians much more aggressively, and this will take a long while.
This seems like a weird perspective, if I'm understanding you you're saying the problems blacks and Arabs have are because of genetics but other dysfunctional cultures are capable of changing if the people from those groups live in America?
FWIW, I don’t want to accept Latin American or Indian gangsters or drug lords or whatever. But their ordinary people are quite decent in the West. Well, in Indians’ case, other than the Roma, but they’ve been in Europe for centuries or more.
I actually don’t necessarily think that Muslims’ problems are due to genetics per se, but rather due to too many of them having fundamentalist religious beliefs. If they will all secularize or convert en masse to Christianity or whatever, then there would be less problems with them. In such a scenario, they would probably be similar to Middle Eastern Christians, but perhaps a bit duller (since the duller Middle Easterners apparently converted to Islam; it was this way in Egypt, at least)—or perhaps comparable to Armenians and Georgians and Balkan peoples and southern Italians. In other words, populations with some problems, but not as many.
With blacks, it’s quite interesting. You occasionally have a black country that is pretty non-homicidal, such as Ghana, but here in the US, we have a very chronic problem with black crime. Black immigrants might be less criminal, but they are more elite relative to US black descendants of slaves. There is some indication that blacks have a serious problem with crime in other parts of the world as well, though again, there are occasional exceptions such as Ghana:
To be fair, maybe an approach like Bukele’s would work really well for solving black crime here in the US, but we have a functioning constitutional that doesn’t allow these types of policies. We can try doing something like stop-and-frisk but then blacks are going to complain about racial profiling.
As I said, figure out a successful way to solve the black crime problem here in the US, and then we can talk about large-scale non-elite black immigration into the US. FWIW, I support the Diversity Visa Lottery because a lot of black elites come through it and also as a cheap way for the US to build global goodwill and to try out quasi-semi-open borders on an extremely small scale. But I do support making it much easier for global cognitive elites to move over here in general.
I don’t know if the West simply gets the good Latin Americans and Indians, or whether they’re tempted to behave better in the West under Western institutions, or some combination of the above, but it is what it is. Even with loads of illegal Latin American immigrants coming over here, US Latinos are nowhere near as homicidal as US blacks are. For Indians specifically, I do think that Western healthcare makes them significantly smarter than they would be back at home in disease-loaded India.
No they don’t if we’re talking about Mestizos. Mestizos simply transfer their chaos and disorder wherever they settle in large numbers. Why would anyone want their state or town to look like Guatemala?
FWIW, if Latin Americans and Indians brought more of their home countries’ problems to the West, then I would have more concerns about them immigrating to the West in huge numbers.
And apparently Western Europe (likely primarily Britain) has a sizable number of working-class Indians as well:
The riots were a response to the confluence of migration, selective policing, multiculturalism and the concessions made to islamic activists by the British state.
Pontificating about the riots is pointless. No need to condemn them. No dissident will ever win any credit for doing so and we should stop playing the regime's game. The riots were, and are, a reaction by a people with an exceptionally grim future in their own homeland. We weaken ourselves by supporting the regime's narrative that anti-regime violence is inexcusable and that conflict with hostile migrant communities is the ultimate evil.
The riots were not ideological and there is next no evidence of the Far Right being involved in any way. The UK Far Right is moribund and irrelevant. The BNP fell apart years ago and the EDL has been inactive for quite a while. Tommy Robinson is essentially a social media influencer, a very useful foil for the UK regime. But practically all of the violence has involved spontaneous outbreaks of frustration by the ethnic English. We are now seeing a counter-mobiiisation by Pakistanis and the extreme Left.
The significance of the riots will unfold over time but they have the capacity to destroy Starmer's government. Thatcher was removed in the wake of the poll tax riots. Starmer's clumsy and provocative response so far is a serious long term political liability. In the short term Starmer will be used to push through authoritarian measures (all of which would have been in the planning stage anyway) but if the riots persist he will be removed.
The value of the riots for rw dissidents is that the regime will double down on repression and speed the delegitimation of the entire political order. The coming crackdown will further empower Muslim thugs who have been reshaping the political landscape to suit themselves. In recent years one MP was murdered by Muslims. Another was compelled to resign in fear for his life. Starmer is certain to escalate the recruitment of Muslims into the judiciary, police and intelligence services and to pour funds into MusIim NGOs.
Further communal violence is guaranteed. A post-bourgeois, deindustriakised, society cannot sustain genteel political norms. Nor is there any good reason why it should. England is adapting to change. The riots are merely a part of this process.
Observing these English people who actually rioted, they are not even the working class, they come from the toothless class.
Low level dependent manual jobs you would call "blue collar" are mostly covered by immigrants.
British working in low skilled jobs are either unionised, and thus largely pro-Labour and caricatural liberals (in the sense they try very hard and very clumsily to virtue signal against their interest), or white-van men who are more of independent thinkers, but are affluent.
People with substandard employment in the gig economy (working in supermarkets, have part-time contracts with recruitment agencies, etc) and the unemployed, they are lumpen and it was them who ransacked the stores in Manchester.
That said, how come the toothless did manage to "spontaneously" organise marching in the streets for multiple days? Don't believe it's something akin to the gilets jaunes of a few years ago in France, which were well coordinated politically. The analogous of the Gilets Jaunes would have been the white-van men taking to the street which obviously didn't happen, just look at the footage of the people involved.
I am leaning more towards these English riots having been astroturfed with the intent to justify a massive incoming repression against the "hard right".
From what you write it seems to me that we are witnessing changes in the class system of the UK. Indigenous whites without significant trade skills are confined to an underclass that resent preferential treatment of non-white migrants and refugees, above all two tier policing. The British state has a patron/client relationship with both the non-white welfare dependents and the non-white working class.
The UK is functioning as a North Atlantic version of California. It is a laboratory for social engineering with a focus on population replacement, repression and the management of class and ethnosectarian rivalries.
You sketch a fairly accurate portrait of the situation, however it's not much of a novelty.
Seems to me British elites have retained the mindset of having to administrate a multiethnic, intercontinental empire, only without colonies, and everyone of every ethnicity concentrated within the British Isles. They just don't know how to govern an ethnically homogeneous nation state in a contemporary liberal legal framework of rights of men, individual freedoms etc. Last time they had to lord over a homogeneous nation was a few centuries ago, in the early-modern era, when they could use divine right + magna charta to grant aristocrats some leeway.
Repression is inevitable. The point of popular action is to continually raise the cost of repression.
Is it really unreasonable to be cool with open borders, or at least significantly more open borders, for the rest of the world, *other than for* both the Muslim world and Sub-Saharan Africa?
Open borders are undesirable for average people but might be ‘cool’ for rootless cosmopolitan ‘elites.’
That would still be a problem because there are lots of other regions full of low IQ savages (Latin America, India, etc)
California is full of Latin Americans. They aren’t savages. Shame on you!
The Roma, of Indian descent, are very dysfunctional in Europe, no doubt about that, but British Indians fare well.
Shame on me? They're plagued by drug cartels, corruption, and perpetual regime change. As for Indians the top 10% are useful but the masses don't even know how to use a toilet and rape dogs so often that it causes widespread disease. I'm not very happy about it but the entire global south is a mess, the only place decent civilizations developed were temperate climates.
Well, that’s the thing. Latin Americans leave their worst traits behind them once they move to the US. They are much less homicidal over here than they are in Latin America, for instance.
As for India, a lot of the proles there are uneducated as fuck, but then again, our own proles also believed in stupid shit several centuries ago, such as burning witches. The goal is to educate Indians much more aggressively, and this will take a long while.
This seems like a weird perspective, if I'm understanding you you're saying the problems blacks and Arabs have are because of genetics but other dysfunctional cultures are capable of changing if the people from those groups live in America?
FWIW, I don’t want to accept Latin American or Indian gangsters or drug lords or whatever. But their ordinary people are quite decent in the West. Well, in Indians’ case, other than the Roma, but they’ve been in Europe for centuries or more.
I actually don’t necessarily think that Muslims’ problems are due to genetics per se, but rather due to too many of them having fundamentalist religious beliefs. If they will all secularize or convert en masse to Christianity or whatever, then there would be less problems with them. In such a scenario, they would probably be similar to Middle Eastern Christians, but perhaps a bit duller (since the duller Middle Easterners apparently converted to Islam; it was this way in Egypt, at least)—or perhaps comparable to Armenians and Georgians and Balkan peoples and southern Italians. In other words, populations with some problems, but not as many.
With blacks, it’s quite interesting. You occasionally have a black country that is pretty non-homicidal, such as Ghana, but here in the US, we have a very chronic problem with black crime. Black immigrants might be less criminal, but they are more elite relative to US black descendants of slaves. There is some indication that blacks have a serious problem with crime in other parts of the world as well, though again, there are occasional exceptions such as Ghana:
https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2024/07/africans-violence-and-genetics/
To be fair, maybe an approach like Bukele’s would work really well for solving black crime here in the US, but we have a functioning constitutional that doesn’t allow these types of policies. We can try doing something like stop-and-frisk but then blacks are going to complain about racial profiling.
As I said, figure out a successful way to solve the black crime problem here in the US, and then we can talk about large-scale non-elite black immigration into the US. FWIW, I support the Diversity Visa Lottery because a lot of black elites come through it and also as a cheap way for the US to build global goodwill and to try out quasi-semi-open borders on an extremely small scale. But I do support making it much easier for global cognitive elites to move over here in general.
I don’t know if the West simply gets the good Latin Americans and Indians, or whether they’re tempted to behave better in the West under Western institutions, or some combination of the above, but it is what it is. Even with loads of illegal Latin American immigrants coming over here, US Latinos are nowhere near as homicidal as US blacks are. For Indians specifically, I do think that Western healthcare makes them significantly smarter than they would be back at home in disease-loaded India.
No they don’t if we’re talking about Mestizos. Mestizos simply transfer their chaos and disorder wherever they settle in large numbers. Why would anyone want their state or town to look like Guatemala?
FWIW, if Latin Americans and Indians brought more of their home countries’ problems to the West, then I would have more concerns about them immigrating to the West in huge numbers.
And apparently Western Europe (likely primarily Britain) has a sizable number of working-class Indians as well:
https://jsmp.dk/posts/2019-09-26-braindrain/immigration.html