Astonishingly Enough, Cameronism Still Not Working

One term Tories? Why not? It's not like The Dave can run on his record is it?

Of course, arguably, the whole point of Cameronism was to achieve nothing. Nasty old right-wing ideologues were thrown under the bus, and instead Cast Iron Dave's Nu Tory Party promised to take over and change things very, very slightly.

And that was how the Tories achieved a 100 seat majority.

But never mind the wider issues, Cameronism doesn't even make sense on its own terms. Cameronism relied on a tacit quid pro quo with the labour placemen in the bureaucracy. Cameron and pals would move into the big offices and the leftists would be left in place and in peace to keep pushing their own agenda. Hence why under a nominally-conservative government we had cops standing around watching rioters go on the rampage - it was Labour appointee police managers following liberal doctrines, but the Tories still got the blame anyway.

This is brilliant politics.

Robert Peel: Vigilante!

Focusing like a laser on the key issue, as ever, liberals have decided that the real problem with law and order breaking down is that it encourages ordinary people to defend their communities.

Oh sure, they're all for it when the defenders are exotically ethnic, but when the white trash get involved, why, that could ruin the riot for everybody.

Liberals claim to be terrified by the prospect of people taking the law into their own hands, even when there's no law to be had in the district anyway. There's plenty of humbuggery on show here, not least in hearing deranged cop-haters explaining why only fascist pigs are competent to protect the public, but the central issue is this: the argument against vigilantism is a constitutional as well as a moral absurdity.

Consider Sir Robert Peel's own principles of law enforcement, specifically number 7:

Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

Or, to put it another way, the police are just citizens in uniform, which means the idea that one group of citizens are required to curl up in a ball and await rescue from another bunch of citizens makes not a lick of sense. If it's illegal for one group of citizens to patrol their own neighbourhood, then that would surely apply to hirelings of the state drafted in from out of town.

Then there's principle number 1:

The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

My unnuanced take on that is 'prevent' means in the sense of 'stopping it happening' not 'standing around filming it, then arresting the perp two weeks later'.

Letting scumbags run rampage and catching them later might be safer for the police, but the citizen is under no moral or legal duty to let himself be victimised merely for the convenience of the police.

Quote of the Day

From a predictable source:

London, the progressive dream: shopkeepers of every race and creed, looted by thieves of every race and creed.

Ann Got There First

Ann Coulter covers our recent festivities. I'm not sure she's right about the racial breakdown - you'd think she'd know better than to trust the BBC - but she does revisit some of the old classics, like the Shannon Matthews non-kidnapping - remember that?

All of which is by way of making an important point: no, this didn't come of the blue. All that's happened is that a whole year's worth of Saturday nights have come at once. No one can say they weren't warned.

I'd say Ann would be able to get a whole book out of this stuff, but she already has.

You should read the whole book, but for now, a short summary: nothing is accidental. Liberals have been relying on mob violence since at least the French Revolution. Liberals stoke mobs, protect them, then create absurd heroic narratives about it all afterwards. They can't win in the marketplace of ideas, so they try and persuade chavs to burn the it down.

You May Not Be Interested In War, But War Is Interested In You

It's a sad sign of the times when Trotsky makes more sense than a soi-dissant conservative home secretary, but here we are with our cities burning and Theresa May is still jabbering about policing by consent.

That will be some negotiation, all right: maybe she's hoping she can get them to agree to only loot one in every two shops?

Of course, this is par for the course for the Nu Tories. The essence of Cameronism is the belief that everything is negotiable and the shortest distance between two points is always straight down the middle.

The worst of it is that this isn't mere spinelessness. On the contrary, in the demented world of the Nu Dave Order, moral equivalence is not only a sign of sophistication, it's their sole raison d'etre. They might be awful at running the country, but look how nuanced and sophisticated are their positions!

The country's burning and silver-spoon degenerate fops are penning oestrogen-laden articles lamenting the incivility of those awful right-wing Mobophobes. Exhibit A here.

Hey, shoot looters, don't shoot looters. There's arguments either way, but nothing sums up the sheer fecklessness of Cameronism like a member of the demographic that's been busy complimenting each other on their fiddling while London burns suddenly start demanding the purging of anyone who says they can smell smoke.

'Modern Conservatism' is a sick, disgusting fraud. A incestuous dogpile of smug, elitist, no-marks looking down their noses at anyone with a proper job, even while they can't even pass the basic test of maintaining law and order.

PC Update

Old Meme: Raycist police officers refuse to clamp down on evil drug-dealing filth becuase they hate black people

New Meme: Raycist police officers execute drug-dealers because they hate black people

A 'Peaceful Protest'

Looks like the enemy within have chosen their line on the Tottenham riots: a peaceful protest about the shooting of 'a man' was hijacked by mysterious extremists.

Hello?

In the real world, people who protest in support of a would-be cop killer with multiple convictions are themselves generally considered pretty extreme. What's the line here? That the peaceful protesters are opposed to the use of violence, except for the whole 'shooting cops' thing?

Again, the contrast is obvious between the BBC's pious denunciations of extremist rhetoric when Oslo comes up, and the self-same organisation pushing a moral equivalence between the forces of law and order and a bunch of lunatics who belive they should be above the law. Just in the past 24 hours, the BBC has given more house room to conspiracy nuts and racist buffoons than five years of the Daily Mail.

Bottom line: does the BBC think there is likely to be more or less violence when a state broadcaster is prepared to propagate myths about executions and police brutality?

Riot In Tottenham, No Blondes Involved

Yes, apparently, it's a Mob of No Appearance, with absolutely no defining characteristics whatsoever, although it's certain they were provoked into by da cutz.

Hey, I'm not an economist, but I'm pretty sure shooting gunmen is pretty much fiscally neutral.

Still, let's check the scorecard here: two references to her work in 1500 pages prove Melanie Phillips caused the Oslo massacre, but there's no connection between outbreaks of mass lawlessness and a wider environment where a Labour MP coming out in defence of the vital human right to shoot at police officers without consequence is treated as a perfectly reasonable position.

Quote of the Day

Via Ace of Spades blog, some badly-needed perspective on America's decision to drop the bomb on Japan, and evidence of a more general problem:

Arthur T. Hadley said recently that those for whom the use of the A-bomb was "wrong" seem to be implying "that it would have been better to allow thousands on thousands of American and Japanese infantrymen to die in honest hand-to-hand combat on the beaches than to drop those two bombs." People holding such views, he notes, "do not come from the ranks of society that produce infantrymen or pilots." ... That is, few of those destined to be blown to pieces if the main Japanese islands had been invaded went on to become our most effective men of letters or impressive ethical theorists or professors of contemporary history or of international law.