IT WAS LIKE THE OLYMPICS FOR DIRTBAGS. I speak of that chaotic summer of 2011, as rioting in London spread like plaque on rotted teeth. I realized, however, that there was something more toxic than the crazy violence going on. It was the reaction to it, which stank of justification. Says one anarchist, while punks steal chocolate, “This is the uprising of the working class. We’re redistributing the wealth” (Fox Nation, August 9, 2011).
Yep, free Mars Bars—that’s a revolution.
I’m sure those folks fighting for their lives in Syria and Libya were inspired by your brave fight for a Toblerone.
I’d hate to be a British shopkeeper knowing that the man looting the store is viewed more romantically than the man stocking the shelves.
But you can find this idiocy anywhere: academia, TV, movies, music … the belief that despicable behavior is okay if you dress it up as a response to “the man.”
But what’s worse is the way the media now responds to this crap. It is the curse of political correctness: Our fear of demanding good behavior now allows for bad. And the media is too timid to call it what it is. Repressive tolerance means you can get your head kicked in and you probably had it coming (which you probably did, and don’t say I didn’t warn you).
Over the course of 2011, I watched this phenomenon called “flash mobs” erupt in various cities—in Philly, especially, but in other places, too, like Milwaukee and Washington, D.C. Every time I pitched the story in our meetings for my show, I knew the segment would always end up in the same place: Why isn’t the media covering this stuff?
It could be that maybe this isn’t a trend at all. That because of the spread of cell phones with cameras, we happen to catch more bad behavior than before. But it bothered me that I was witnessing something I felt was a direct cause of tolerance—and that somehow it mutated into an accepting mentality that is, at its basic level, inhuman, disgusting. How could we condemn corporate criminals for fleecing investors and not condemn teens doing the same to hardworking people? People who probably came to this country to escape this kind of loathsome behavior?
I realized no one was covering this for the same reason I didn’t want to cover it. Fear of being called a bigot.
Could it be that if you expect civilized behavior, you’re a racist? Is it better to just look the other way, and lock your doors?
Or move? Some place with a moat?
This was a first step toward something far worse. Letting kids get away with trashing a 7-Eleven and being thankful that they were “orderly” about it makes deviant behavior more acceptable.
Which you saw in the U.K. spread like a virus. A British virus. Like Russell Brand.
And so I must ask, why does looting occur? Well, it happens because you let it. Without fear of punishment, there is no need for the looter to stop, especially when he’s got apologists behind him (or her—don’t want to offend anyone!).
We know the rioting in England would never happen in Texas. Personally, I’ve never met more tolerant people than Texans. They’ll let you do just about anything, provided you don’t do anything to them. Meaning, “Don’t mess with Texas” has an implicit second part to that saying: “and we won’t mess with you.”
Part of that equation is a threat of harm. You can have all the fun you want, but if you mess with me, I will shoot you in the asshole (that’s the Texas “warning shot”).
Guns, oddly enough, are the biggest force for real tolerance. If you’re a gay cross-dressing cowboy who likes to smoke jazz cigarettes (nothing but the most up-to-date references here, folks) in the privacy of your ranch, a shotgun will protect you from anyone who might find any one of those descriptors objectionable. A gun lets your freak flag fly—provided you don’t use that flag to stab someone in the face at a strip mall.
Which is why the U.K. is a mess. Not only are the law-abiding citizens unarmed, but so are the well-meaning cops—who, from my experience living in the place, felt more at home giving directions and taking pictures. Without protections or authority themselves, what’s the point of going after the rabble? Let me take a picture of these coeds from Gainesville instead. They have such great teeth (they have teeth).
During the riots, the authors of the smash hit book Freakonomics tweeted about a research paper linking recent budget cuts to social unrest in Europe. It claimed, “Once you cut expenditure by more than 2% of GDP, instability increases rapidly … especially in terms of riots and demonstrations.”
The conclusion: Governments fear austerity programs for this reason. It was, essentially, a threat (or what qualifies as a threat from guys who wear cardigans and tweed jackets).
Meaning riots. Bloodshed. Looting. Kids in ski masks who aren’t skiing at all. And so on. One of the more hilarious outgrowths of tolerance: watching politicians debate whether or not they should be able to ask or force these thugs to remove their face masks as they roam the streets looking for flat screens, bags of cat food, and surgical supplies they have no use for. It was an attack on one’s freedom, and individuality, to have the audacity to question their garb. You can’t find a better consequence of repressive tolerance that endorses the destruction of decency. It’s like debating whether a rapist should wear a condom.
So you can’t save your city, because the citizens will riot. Which is a sad and scary point: What protects bloated government and entitlement is a visceral fear that if you take candy from the baby, the baby will trash your local supermarket.
Or rather their local supermarket. The British looters apparently are so angry, they took it out on the only useful people in their communities, whom they called “rich”—which translates there as “anyone with more than me.” Yep, tolerance is a belief that doesn’t protect anyone who worked hard for their money. This is why President Obama’s “pay your fair share” rhetoric, in the end, was nothing more than stoking the fear of that kind of envy. If you don’t agree that the makers should give more to the takers, then the takers might come get you. Commerce is now extortion.
I lived in London (for three years, most of it fat and buzzed), and the cops were great. But without guns, what good are they, besides helping drunks like me back to the tube station before I peed myself? (Which is a vital public service that New York needs to institute.)
But couple that with idiots equating looters to victims and it’s no wonder riots continue unabated purely for lurid fun.
Looking at England, we see we’ve hit the edge of civilization—where, left unprotected, a city will burn, because there is no one impolite enough to prevent it. Letting it happen seems to be all we have left. So we watch it on TV and hope the mob passes us by.
But before I collapse into an existential heap, I want to poop all over this idea that the violence is linked to budget cuts. During the chaos, so many “experts” painted a grim picture of a forgotten generation left without hopes or dreams. Talking heads and scribes mentioned the root causes of the rioters’ rage (the killing of a young man by the police), conveniently avoiding the sheer ugliness of these “victims’ ” behavior.
Yeah. About these victims. It turns out the perps arrested aren’t as romantically disenfranchised as the progressive politicians would have wanted. Of course, when the movie is made about all this (and it will be), that won’t be the case. The criminals will be gorgeous students with lilting accents, heroic day laborers, poor black DJs—who, fed up with “the man,” take the streets back for one glorious week. There will be drugs, sex, and true love occurring among the flames—as two romantic teens unite in sexual congress while the Sony building goes up in smoke. I can’t wait to see how Justin Timberlake does with his accent!
In that movie, of course, you won’t see the local shopkeepers weeping over the fact that their neighbors destroyed their livelihood. You won’t see the sheer greed that drove so many to hurt so many others. You also won’t see how monumentally stupid and vicious these thugs are. All you will see is Sienna Miller handing out looted Cadbury bars to Welsh coal miners. I only hope that when Oliver Stone directs it, Colin Firth gets run over by a lorry.
That’s the movie, but in real life, do you want to know who the “disenfranchised” really were? Here’s a short list: a millionaire’s daughter, a hairdresser, and a lifeguard.
Yeah, they were all looters, none of whom I’d call a victim of anything other than being an asshole. But my favorite one? An organic chef.
Yep, using pesticides on vegetables is evil, but trashing a restaurant (which is what the chef did) is just “brill” (that’s U.K. slang for something).
But who knows, maybe the eatery he targeted used additives in their lamb sausage appetizers! Maybe that breast of chicken didn’t once belong to a free-range bird who lived its last moments bathed in music by Enya. For that, they must pay.
My second favorite looter? A female ambassador to the Olympics. At least her mom turned her in (probably to get a reality show). But maybe Mom was wrong and her daughter’s looting was for a purpose. Throwing rocks at cops might be great prep for the shot put. Or the next austerity riot.
Remove the false sentimentality and you find no romanticism in the wreckage—only petty selfishness and envy, accelerated by opportunity, greed, and cowardice. And college students who didn’t want to take their midterms. It’s something you’ll see bubbling up again with Occupy Wall Street—justifying riots and assault under the guise of “injustice.” What a pathetic world we live in, when even our criminals are a joke. Still, you know England’s riots are destined for the Oscars and Danny Boyle’s mantelpiece. Which still won’t make up for his horrible 2012 Olympic ceremonies. What was that anyway—Chitty Chitty Bang Bang for the clinically insane? It must have been, because I loved it.