Higgenbotham's Dark Age Hovel

[Guest]

This massive influx of immigrants has already made society much more dangerous, living in these high density areas is stressful, Rishi, Starmer and others of their ilk don't have to live with the consequences of their agendas.

What I wonder is, who's paying them to make such bad decisions ?

[guest]

I’m not sure that a year of intense reading on your own without a guide will teach you a trade.

He said learn a trade and then read books to get the equivalent of a college degree of info.

[ESG]

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2023-09- ... ower-plant

Diversity In The Nuclear Power Plant

We are screwed

[ESG]

Britain is turning into South Africa
From schools to prisons, our state is crumbling
BY WESSIE DU TOIT

Wessie du Toit writes about culture, design and ideas. His Substack is The Pathos of Things.


September 8, 2023


I’ve always suspected that Europeans are incapable of understanding South Africa, the strange and complicated nation where I was born and often return. At bottom, the issue is this: how can people so accustomed to safety, stability and a well-functioning state really grasp the nature of a place where none of these things can be taken for granted?

I feel obliged to say that South Africa is a wonderful country, and a resilient one. For every horror story you see in the media — most recently the tragic blaze in Johannesburg — there are many things worthy of love. Nonetheless, three decades after the end of apartheid, it is obvious that the ruling African National Congress (ANC) has failed in its historic mission: to spread the living standards formerly enjoyed by the white minority to the broad mass of the population. It has, if anything, achieved the opposite, overseeing the dereliction of the infrastructure and human potential on which any such improvement would depend.

Metaphors for this failure are everywhere. Railways that took my parents to their summer holidays as children now lie rusting and abandoned. Supermarkets sell asphalt for drivers to fill in potholes for themselves (the product is marketed as gatvol, which means both “hole-full” and “fed-up”). Criminal gangs, their numbers buoyed by an unemployment rate above 30%, cut down traffic lights for scrap, steal transformers from power stations and collapse roads with illegal mining operations. Eskom, the national power monopoly, is so ravaged by corruption that daily blackouts now last as long as nine hours.

Especially since the reign of former president Jacob Zuma, politics has descended into a looting operation that extends from multinational businesses down to local mafias, even as the impoverished majority finds its taps running dry and its sewage systems spilling over. Anger is quelled with promises to expropriate farmland and wealth from white citizens. Crime is rampant and the police are widely regarded as useless. As I say, Brits are far removed from this. They were heavily involved in Southern Africa during the 19th and early-20th centuries, sending settlers, redcoats, and gold and diamond prospectors, but today they mainly send nervous tourists. The pathologies of South African society seem as exotic as the hot, dry climate and the wild animals on the veld.

But are they really? Lately I’ve been questioning if the gulf separating the two countries is as vast as I assumed. At first it was just small things, sotto voce echoes of South Africa protruding into British life. A man begging from cars stopped at the traffic lights. An epidemic of urban homelessness. Universities renaming buildings to repudiate links with the past. A steady trickle of stories about police no longer bothering to investigate crimes. Now, a prison escape in the capital and parents scared to send their children to crumbling schools. Once I started paying attention, though, the resonances grew ever deeper. The media loves to measure Britain against the GDP of American states, European healthcare and Australian quality of life. This is supposed to be self-deprecating, but maybe it is more flattering than we care to admit. Analogies to South Africa can expose things that comparisons with rich countries leave obscured.

Consider the cloud of scandal and dysfunction which has settled over the UK’s privatised utilities, namely water, energy and railways. These services have increasingly been marked by cronyism, private gain, mismanagement and underinvestment, all familiar symptoms of corruption in South Africa. For years the water companies have been paying out huge dividends to shareholders, while racking up vast debt piles and spilling sewage on a daily basis. Last year, Govia Thameslink Railway was awarded a lucrative new contract, despite one of its subsidiaries, Southeastern, being caught defrauding the public purse of millions. Then again, bad trains may end up being the least of our problems, for the National Grid has warned that the UK may face power cuts in the coming winter, and is urging businesses to reduce their electricity use. There is a growing realisation that Britain does not have the grid capacity needed for the government’s decarbonisation plans.

It is becoming clear, in other words, that Britain’s post-Eighties regime of privatisation has led to a subtle form of the South African disease. The state fails to maintain and improve infrastructure, while allowing the asset-stripping of national wealth by private interests. Who needs criminal syndicates when you have hedge funds and private equity firms? There was something especially South African in ministers’ claims that Thames Water cannot be renationalised, despite its severe debt crisis, because doing so would scare away the foreign investors who prop up the UK’s economy.

Meanwhile, the Tory party does an increasingly passable impression of the ANC. Apparently convinced it will be in power forever, it has become little more than a vehicle for personal advancement and influence peddling, disguising its aimlessness with an occasional bout of populist rhetoric. This was especially evident during the Covid pandemic, when the genteel traditions of British corruption — peerages in exchange for political and financial support — gave way to the handing out of state contracts worth billions to politically connected companies, often lacking relevant experience.

The South African comparison also casts a revealing light on Britain’s social cleavages, though I am not talking about the kinds of ethnic tensions for which South Africa is infamous. It is true that the UK economy’s voracious appetite for immigration, an easy source of cheap labour and consumers, resembles South Africa’s habit of exploiting migrants from elsewhere in Africa. But one only has to look at the frequent anti-immigrant pogroms in South African townships to see that, for all the anxieties over integration, British society remains a relative picture of harmony.

The real issue is class. Brits often express shock that extreme inequality appears so normalised in South Africa, but an outsider to the UK could make a similar charge. In post-industrial Britain, working classes of all ethnicities are consigned to poverty wages in jobs such as cleaning, shelf-stacking and delivery driving, if they have not dropped out of the workforce altogether. London and its surrounding counties have become, like South Africa’s Western Cape, the luxurious facade Britain shows to the world; but other parts of the country are faring much worse, with healthy life expectancy trailing significantly in parts of Northern England, Scotland and Wales. Countless towns have fallen into abject poverty, regarded by polite society with little more concern than South African townships, their inhabitants ruled unfit for anything better by the very fact of remaining there. Social mobility, we are told this week, is at its worst in more than 50 years.

This wasted potential is tragic on its own terms, but it has wider ramifications, too. In South Africa, where 29 million people receive state welfare grants and only 7.4 million pay tax, the state is trapped in a doom-loop, with spending on social programmes hampering investment that could benefit the economy. But to look at projections for the British state’s ever-growing benefits, health care and social care bills, it seems we may be heading for a similar scenario. These parallels will doubtless seem absurd to many Brits, and doubly so to South Africans. Earlier this year, when I mentioned to some friends over there that the UK has its own problems with government incompetence, they literally laughed in my face.

After the Cold War, the rubric of “developed” and “developing” countries implied that the Western model was the endpoint of economic progress across the world. Three decades later, the distinctive features of that model — nation-states with strong civic cultures, meaningful democratic conflict, economic growth and a commitment to broad-based prosperity — have themselves been eroded by globalisation. Hence developing countries provide an increasingly plausible model for the future of developed ones, rather than vice-versa. In this sense, at least, Britain remains at the vanguard of global capitalism. And making this explicit ought to help in countering complacency. For all their gallows humour, the British are used to counting themselves among the world’s most advanced and admired nations, and so struggle to grasp the possibility that, in 50 years’ time, this may no longer be the case. Which brings me to the most disturbing echo of South Africa I’ve noticed in recent years.

This is something more amorphous: a matter of mood and mentality. South Africans have come to regard their chaotic and inept state with a weary resignation that borders on ridicule. It is a burden to be negotiated when necessary, and fended off where possible. For some time now, Britain’s attitude to its own governing class has been moving in the same direction. New Labour alienated large parts of the traditional Left, and now Tory incompetence has led to similar cynicism among conservatives. With each perceived betrayal, more people enter the reservoir of citizens who have given up believing that Westminster can do anything remotely useful.

These feelings have real consequences for a country’s prospects. Why do so many people stubbornly resist house-building and planning reform? Why do they see it as common sense to reject society’s claims on their resources? Part of the reason is surely that, once we lose faith in the nation’s political authorities, appeals to compromise for the greater good ring hollow. Or to put it in terms a South African would understand: the British are gatvol.

https://unherd.com/2023/09/britain-is-t ... th-africa/

[Higgenbotham]

Contradictions

The phenomenon of decadence boils down to
the fact that high levels of integration,
organisation and cohesion remove the need to
exercise the virtues which created them. The
experience of peace lessens enthusiasm for the
martial disciplines, which established peace in the
first place. The experience of wealth lessens
enthusiasm for the thrift and hard work that
originally brought wealth. The experience of
legitimacy and moral well-being lessens
enthusiasm for the self-restraint on which these
depend.

Decadence does not arise accidentally. It is
actually encouraged by a state of ascendancy.
Cohesion, for example, creates an environment in
which discohesive attitudes pay. The mutual
loyalty of a cohesive group is ripe for
exploitation. Actors may benefit by taking
advantage of the solidarity that ensures even the
society’s most indigent members are not allowed to
starve. They may also take advantage of the
society’s tendency to extend legitimacy even to
those who overtly renounce its values.

In a similar way, organisation stimulates
the attitudes that lead to disorganisation. In a
poor, disorganised society, the only way to
achieve material advancement is through
entrepreneurship, i.e. the genuine creation of new
economic relationships. There are no significant
funds to misappropriate. However, in a wealthy
society, potential organisation can be acquired
by non-entrepreneurial means, such as by taking on
debt. Strategies based on various degrees of fraud
may be more worthwhile than real, painstaking
entrepreneurship.

Finally, integration promotes
disintegrative attitudes in that people who
subvert the hierarchies of an ordered society may
gain advantages relative to those who submit
meekly to authority. By threatening the general
peace, minority actors can gain concessions out of
all proportion to their real coercive capabilities.

In essence, ascendancy means that actors are
relieved of the individually borne costs of
integration, organisation and cohesion but
can still enjoy the global benefits. As decadence
spreads, the situation must become increasingly
unbalanced, with too many actors exploiting the
perception of ascendancy and too few continuing to
supply the necessary virtues in reality. Hence, there
will be a dangerously widening gap between the
perceptions and the reality.

The Phoenix Principle and the Coming Dark Age by Marc Widdowson, 2001
pp.167-168

[Higgenbotham]

** 23-Aug-2023 World View: Biden's KKK America

> Mainly, those posts were meant to
> convey that, in a globalized
> economy, there will by the nature of
> what a globalized economy is, be
> people who rise by fortuitous
> circumstances to a level where their
> opinions and impact are out of
> proportion. Having a few
> individuals make an outsized
> contribution to decision making
> while the majority make an
> undersized contribution will most
> likely result in outcomes that are
> somewhere between sub-optimal and
> terrible.

Your analysis is spot on, and it becomes
even more interesting when you apply it
to national political leaders.

As I've written a number of times in the
past, a dictatorship is the best form of
government, as long as the dictator
makes good decisions. But if the
dictator makes a bad decision, then the
nature of the dictatorship form of
government is that no one stop the
implementation of the bad decision.

So Hitler's invasion of Russia was a
disaster. Mao's Great Leap Forward was
a disaster. Putin's invasion of Ukraine
has been a disaster so far. Xi's
Covid-zero policy was a disaster. Each
bad decision could not be stopped, since
there was no way to stop it.

Ascendancy also increases the likelihood of
mismanagement. The slogan of the Nazi party, Ein
Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer – One People, One
Government, One Leader, was essentially the
formula for high integration and high
cohesion. Hitler had absolute authority. There
were no explicit mechanisms for challenging his
reasoning or judgement. With the notion of ‘ein
Volk’ there could be little room for internal debate
and self-criticism. Such loyalty and implicit
obedience made the Nazi state in some ways
extraordinarily strong. However, there was a major
drawback. The state was vulnerable to bad
decisions. Hitler’s plan to invade the Soviet Union,
for example, seems to have contravened all sense,
all evidence and certainly the wishes of the military
high command. Yet the high integration and
cohesion of the Nazi regime meant that the
proposed policy was never properly tested in
debate and was allowed to unfold, with disastrous
consequences. The same has been seen in Iraq,
where Saddam Hussein has executed officials
merely for suggesting some devolution of authority
to army commanders. With its excessive
integration, the Iraqi army has correspondingly
suffered from a lack of operational
responsiveness.

The trouble is that one individual cannot get it
right all the time – especially after a series of
successes has created an illusion of invincibility.
Debate and criticism are necessary to rehearse ideas
and to filter out the bad ones before they are put
into practice. A strongly integrated hierarchy
discourages the flow of information that challenges
authoritative decisions. It suppresses differences
of opinion, and so the group cannot benefit from its
collective wisdom and insight. Similarly,
cohesion means that the members of a group
strongly share a common set of views. The
members of the group check and reassure each
other to produce full commitment to the group’s
goals and the proposed methods of achieving them.
There are no differences between people. There is
no creative tension, and no adaptability or
innovation. The group’s members are reluctant to
challenge the received wisdom. This is potentially
disastrous, since the received wisdom may be
wrong.

The collective decisions of a strong group may
therefore be of lower quality than the decisions that
its individual members might take when acting
alone. A tightly knit group, such as a shift of power
plant operators, may be especially prone to risky
behaviour. Its members validate each other’s
beliefs and become imbued with a false sense of
confidence. Individuals, by contrast, with no
cohesive group to legitimise their decisions, may
experience greater self-doubt and be more ruthless
in criticising their own assumptions.

President J F Kennedy blamed this ‘risky shift’
phenomenon for the Bay of Pigs fiasco, in which
the United States sponsored a doomed invasion of
Cuba by Cuban dissidents. In retrospect, he could
not understand how he had endorsed such an illconceived
mission, and he resolved never again to
allow a small cohesive group of advisers to
counsel him exclusively during national crises. A
broader group ought to throw up more internal
debate and disagreements, and this would
presumably allow a more realistic view to emerge.

There is a kind of inexorable logic, therefore,
whereby a state of unchallenged ascendancy leaves
a group vulnerable to poor decision-making. This
logic is compounded by the fact that ascendant
societies are hostage to a complex polity and
economy, whose very maintenance demands
sophisticated reasoning and administration of
decisions. There is more to look after and preserve,
and this can absorb growing amounts of attention
and resources.

The Phoenix Principle and the Coming Dark Age by Marc Widdowson, 2001
p. 168

[Higgenbotham]

In the American series of crises, something collapses, and those who were oppressed receive a new birth of freedom. With the Revolution, colonial imperialism and noble privilege collapsed in America, and in the process came independence and freedom. With the Civil War slavery collapsed and power switched from the landowners to the robber barons. Many got more equality and opportunity. In FDR’s time, the government regulated the economy, and organized containment.

In each of these, the conservative effort to remain the same collapsed, and new values and policies that solved the crisis were established and passed on. The society thrived.

So what are the crisis issues of today? In Black Lives Matter there was police prejudice killing and spree killing of not just black minorities, protesting toward an end of prejudice and more equality. In abortion there was an attempt by religious fanatics to spread their religious doctrine to unbelievers, countered by a press for independence and freedom. In the insurrection there was opposition to rule of law. In Covid there was money valued over lives.

It isn’t just because one side is called conservative that that side collapses. It is not a coincidence that with the collapse of the old ideas the new ideas which resulted in ‘social collapse’ seem to many like a new birth of freedom. S&H crises are the mechanism by which a culture improves itself, with the values which forced the 'collapse' passed on in the new culture.

So go ahead. Oppress minority communities. Follow a criminal. Try to force your culture on others. Whine about the society collapsing. Has it occurred that parts of the society, those that present the most problems, are supposed to collapse? That is the whole idea?

In the kind of history that is taught in school,
the ordinary people tend to be presented as passive
extras who facilitate the grander schemes of
monarchs and generals, accepting their lot and
furthering the ends of their masters. However, the
reality is that peasant revolts, lynching of tax
inspectors, and riots against unfair laws and taxes
have been a feature of every century and every
country. Many people have been enslaved
throughout recorded history, but this does not mean
that they have ever been willing – quite the reverse.
There have been continual pressures on the
institutions of ascendant societies impelling them to
evolve in the direction of growing respect,
opportunity and independence for the ordinary
individual.

In Britain from the fourteenth century
onwards, the labour services that serfs owed their
landlords were increasingly commuted into money
rents. This was driven by the serfs, who felt
themselves freer when they paid rent than when
their time was not their own. More recently, labour
legislation has ameliorated working conditions,
while the electoral franchise has been extended to
all categories of men and to women. None of these
things were just granted from on high by
enlightened parliaments. They came in response to
concerted campaigns and demands that appeared
irresistible.

There is no end to movement in this direction.
The more people have achieved, the more they
seem to want. It is impossible to draw a line under
any particular set of demands. People will never be
completely satisfied or say that this level of welfare
is sufficient and no more is needed. After the state
has improved its citizens’ welfare in a small way, it
receives demands to improve their welfare in a big
way. After the major hardships and injustices have
been removed, the medium-size hardships and
injustices seem to loom, and then after that the
minor ones. Social progress is like Hercules’s
combat with the hydra. The more that is done, the
more there is to do.

Once a particular freedom or indulgence has
been granted, it is very difficult to take it away
again. There is a ratchet effect. Each advance
becomes the new baseline from which further
demands go forward. This is why the Roman dole
was always increasing. Some Roman emperors
extended the scope of the dole in order to quell a
crisis, or gain popular endorsement of their
accession. Their successors then found it
impossible to reverse the change. Similarly, Roman
soldiers came to expect bounties as part of their
normal salary. Having been given once, they had to
be given again and again.

People tend to accumulate rights. The
fundamental discohesion of an ascendant
society encourages this. People are selfish and they
put their own interests above those of the
community. Special interest groups press their
particular claims regardless of the interests of
society as a whole. As social psychologists have
repeatedly shown, people’s motivations are high
when they participate in small groups on tasks
whose purpose they can see, but plummet
dramatically when their contributions are largely
anonymous and have little impact on the overall
performance of the group. The latter situation
describes a high-scale ascendant society. Its
members are relatively de-motivated and
indifferent to their community’s problems. People
expect more but are inclined to contribute less.
Rights are important, but duties and obligations to
others pale into irrelevance.

Extension of the franchise, itself a response to
popular aspirations, largely accelerates this whole
process. There is more incentive to attend to the
welfare of those who have the vote. People can
acquire power for themselves and thus implement
the reforms that they desire. Policies that appeal
more to selfish instincts tend to win out over those
that emphasise self-denial and community
accountability.

The French revolution came at a time when the
government was introducing reforms and the
condition of the proletariat had never been
improving more rapidly. Seemingly perverse,
this illustrates a general principle. The process of
satisfying demands may create expectations that
cannot be satisfied or at least not satisfied in time
to appease those in whom they have been raised.
The danger of social breakdown is often greatest
when conditions are improving but not improving
fast enough. The same thing occurred in eastern
Europe in 1989, and in China’s Tianenmen Square
in the same year. A small amount of liberalisation
did not satisfy the people at all. It merely sharpened
their hunger. When conditions are miserable and
set to remain miserable, people can resign
themselves fatalistically to their lot. When things
are getting better, fatalism disappears, impatience
grows and the social order is threatened.

The Phoenix Principle and the Coming Dark Age by Marc Widdowson, 2001
p. 171

The experience of representative government
corrodes the habit of submission to authority that is
needed for political integration. The police, for
instance, are increasingly likely to find themselves
in court, questioned over their methods and
disciplined for exceeding their powers. In Britain,
suing the police is a growth industry, currently
worth around £60 million per year. Corporal
punishment was banned from state schools in 1986
and made illegal everywhere in 1999. It has
become inconceivable for a police officer or a
teacher to cuff an unruly child around the ear,
though that was commonplace less than a century
ago. Teachers have lost credibility as authority
figures and are themselves likely to be assaulted by
both pupils and parents.

In 1998, it was announced that a police officer
was to take up residence in an Oxfordshire school
near a troubled housing estate. It was emphasised
that the constable would not be patrolling the
playground but would instead be helping the
children to understand the role of the police in
contemporary society, in a bid to win their
confidence and respect. Another police officer
assigned to a troubled school prided himself on
being on first name terms with the youngsters,
while the uniform of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
was redesigned to include a baseball cap, on the
grounds that this would be ‘more appealing to
young Roman Catholics’. The aim in all these
cases was to promote law and order in a cuddly,
non-threatening way. This goes against the whole
logic of political integration. Order cannot be
imposed in a non-threatening way. It would be far
more effective if constables were to patrol the
playground, looking intimidating and backed up by
real powers to punish wrong-doers.

The following exchange took place recently
between a 13 year old boy appearing in court and a
police officer:
Boy: (During a recess, lounging back with
feet up on the dock.) What are you
looking at?
Police officer: Nothing.
Boy: Then don’t stare at me. (Swears.)
One may well believe that it is wrong for
teachers and constables to use physical violence
against children. No doubt, police behaviour in the
past has been arbitrary and excessive, and deserves
to be exposed to the scrutiny of law. Nevertheless,
an authority whose powers are curbed and
criticised and that is afraid of upsetting anyone
cannot be a very good political integrator.
Everyday experience and five thousand years of
history show that credible sanctions are more
effective at controlling people’s behaviour than
appeals to their better nature.

It is not surprising that school indiscipline has
become an epidemic throughout the developed
world. In American schools, there has been a major
growth in violent crime, of which multiple
shootings are only the most dramatic
illustration. In Japan, worried parents have
taken to bugging their children’s lunch boxes in
response to the growing problem there of
playground violence and extortion. This has
been blamed on imitation of television violence.
However, the fundamental reason is that children
are increasingly out of control in a society where
teachers hardly dare even to speak sharply to them,
for fear of being accused of some form of mental
abuse.

These developments should not be attributed
to a few misguided educationalists or liberal chief
constables. They represent the whole drift of
attitudes in the developed world. Juries have been
increasingly willing to acquit people in minor cases
of cannabis consumption, even when instructed by
the judge that the admitted facts make a guilty
verdict obligatory. Indeed, it is often the judges
themselves who interpret the law in ways that
pervert its spirit in order to right what they see as
social injustices. One may applaud this situation on
a personal level. Yet the more that the law becomes
negotiable, the more its very logic is undermined.

The Phoenix Principle and the Coming Dark Age by Marc Widdowson, 2001
pp. 197-198

[aeden]

I believe many banks and financial institutions continue to see extreme stress due to their commercial real estate loan portfolios, deposit losses due to low interest on cash, etc. And this is their response to raise cash, de-leverage and try and shore up their balance sheet.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/463526 ... 12075.2640

As we noted before the rope burn phase is here.
The Velvit rope phase has passed to survive the Alinsky lunatics.
The current 535 swamp uniparty are no solution.
They are the root cause.
It was noted 20 Americans are murdered every day from illegals as zones collapse now.
Democrats indeed murdered you.
March sweeps will be what survived the Washington grifter cult.
Nothing Biden can do as zones are now going under in real time.

Migrants overwhelming resources in Arizona, congressman says.
They do not even pretend to care or ever will. Politics is always over economics.
Game over as million more will not be stopped and are on the way.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez calls for more federal funding to address New York's migrant crisis.
To late you shut down grass root producers that even had 500 contracts for working people.
You're too stupid to survive what you caused and what's already here.

[DT Subscriber]

Peckham protests illustrate the redundancy of ‘Bame’
Tensions between non-white minorities have been persistently ignored

Following footage circulating online of a black woman accused of theft being physically restrained by a male Asian-heritage shopkeeper in the south-east London district of Peckham, the matter of community cohesion in England’s diverse inner cities has once again been thrust into the spotlight.

Tense community relations between elements of Britain’s wider Asian and black populations are nothing new. The 2005 Birmingham riots — specifically in the relatively deprived Lozells and Handsworth areas — were primarily between people of Pakistani origin and Black Caribbean heritage. The riots were sparked following rumours that a teenage black girl had allegedly been gang-raped by a group of Pakistani-heritage men in a beauty parlour. The unsubstantiated whispers were presented as fact by two pirate radio stations, contributing towards a major escalation. The riots were connected to two fatalities: 23-year-old Isaiah Young-Sam and teenager Aaron James.

However, much like south-east London in the present, there were simmering tensions between Asian-origin business owners and local black residents in Birmingham. The acquisition of many local businesses by Asian-origin entrepreneurs had reportedly unsettled members of African-Caribbean communities, and this was exacerbated by complaints of mistreatment against Asian-heritage business owners by black customers. Those who ran the enterprises responded by accusing members of the African-Caribbean community of envy for their socioeconomic progress and ownership of assets. More serious allegations included theft, with one Pakistani-heritage shopkeeper referring to black people as “the lowest of the low”.

Fast forward to September 2023 and virtually identical dynamics have taken root in south-east London — racial friction based on socioeconomic status and business ownership, a breakdown of shopkeeper-customer relations along ethnic lines, and a fundamental lack of neighbourhood policing enforcement to maintain public order. In places such as Peckham, the local black population comfortably outnumbers the Asian one, yet a significant number of small-to-medium-sized enterprises which cater to the former, wider demographic are owned by the latter.

Social interactions which could optimistically be viewed as opportunities to build trust and mutual respect between groups have instead been rendered toxic by an intensifying competition of resources, ethnic prejudice, and growing business-customer resentment. This is worsened by the absence of a well-respected model of neighbourhood policing which covers areas with a high concentration of street shops.

The latest events in Peckham highlight the utterly redundant nature of the “Bame” acronym, which tends to mask the reality that some of the sharpest social fault lines in modern Britain do not involve the white-British mainstream at all. A report published in August 2020 by Hope Not Hate found that twice as many so-called “Bame” respondents agreed (40%) than disagreed that there is more tension between Britain’s minority communities, when compared with those between white and non-white populations.

This was followed by a February 2021 HJS-ICM study which found that black British respondents were more likely to have an unfavourable view of Pakistani-, Bangladeshi-, and Indian-heritage people (11.2%, 11.1%, and 8.7% respectively) than white Britons (7.9%).

While apparently progressive politicians in the inner cities continue to repeat empty platitudes such as “diversity is our strength”, the failure to integrate ethnically diverse communities carries significant risks to public order. This threat is further complicated by ethnic differences in socio-economic status and the de facto decriminalisation of low-level crime in many urban areas.

Social and economic tensions in Peckham between non-white communities does not constitute a recent phenomenon. Rather, these serve as yet another reminder of the complexities of modern Britain and the fact that diversity is by no means an unadulterated good. As it stands, far too many in positions of national and local leadership are sleeping at the wheel.

Several journalists in the UK have blamed (and I kid you not) 'White Supremacy' for the violence between blacks and Pakistanis/Indians (which are called 'Asians in the UK).

This is where the real violence is already erupting. In England its blacks vs. Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Koreans, Chinese, Eastern Europeans, etc.

In America its blacks fighting with every race except for white liberals (which blacks happily victimize).

Source: https://unherd.com/thepost/peckham-prot ... ame-label/

I've seen the video of this event. It clearly shows black women, who fight like men, punching a Pakistani store owner in the face.

And blacks running around the next day saying this is about "respecting black women". Huh?

From the Daily Telegraph:

Experts said the incident had been exploited by opportunists who wanted to stoke tensions while police failures to solve low-level crime had seen shopkeepers defend their own stores.

Dr Rakib Ehsan, social integration expert, said: “Tribal opportunists have used the incident at Peckham Hair and Cosmetics to unleash their anti-Asian prejudices and enviousness over matters of business ownership.”

He said this week had shown “some of the deepest fault-lines in modern Britain are between its racial and ethnic minorities”, adding: “It also highlights how the de-facto decriminalisation of lower-level crime heightens the risk of ‘shopkeeper vigilantism’ in urban areas.”

Charlotte Littlewood, an extremism expert at the International Centre of Sustainability think tank, added that a “community breakdown along ethnic lines” was being ignored by the Government.

“Our policing and Government are failing to properly address interminority racism,” she said. “Perhaps critical race theory indoctrination combined with a fear of offending leads us blind and reserved when it comes to policing.”

The main stream media in the UK does not show the whole video. No surprise there. If you look on Telegram you can find dozens of videos all showing the same thing: black women stealing, attacking, and causing mayhem in Indian and Pakistani stores all over London, not just Peckham.
This incident is only one of thousands across London every week.

Yes, the civil war will be between the ethnic minorities in the UK. White Britons have already fled the cities.

Brace for impact.

[DT Subscriber]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/0 ... gniter-rhr

I'm not sure if this will be accessible to non-subscribers, John.