reading list

Today’s list starts with Jesus. Sunday was the feast day of Christ the King, and Kevin Williamson at the National Review explains its importance in countering the fascist, socialist or communist god-State.

Williamson states: ‘But the spirit behind the institution of Christ the King was and is entirely consonant with the American idea. To the encroaching and arrogant spirit of communism and fascism the Vicar of Christ said, “No. You are not the beginning and the end. You are not the dispositive power in this universe. You are not the final judge. There is something above you and beyond you and infinitely greater than you. You, with all your bombs and bayonets and prisons, may command all the known world to kneel at your feet, but we have seen pharaohs before, and emperors and god-kings, too, and we have in the end stood over their graves, and thought on the grave that is empty”.’
He concludes in this powerful piece: ‘The message of Christ the King is that while we may owe the legitimate secular powers some obedience, they cannot claim us as property to be disposed of in accordance with their own whims, because there is Another who has a prior and superseding claim on us.’

The second piece again is on the sexual counter-revolution. It calls for a re-think of the current no-boundaries sexual free-for-all that has landed us in this mess.

Christine Emba in the Washington Post believes that ‘now could be the time to reintroduce virtues such as prudence, temperance, respect and even love. We might pursue the theory that sex possibly has a deeper significance than just recreation and that “consent” – that thin and gameable boundary – might not be the only moral sensibility we need respect.’

Only time will tell whether common sense prevails once all the predators and harassers have been held to account.

Finally, a piece from 2009 in City Journal, explaining once again the incredible drop in the crime rate of New York City.

This is an important piece because it tells us that nothing is inevitable. Safe cities do not appear by accident: someone must decide to make safety a priority and find a system that ensures it happens. This system to reinvent a city racked with crime was known as ‘broken windows’, not to be confused with zero tolerance, or stop and frisk (or stop and search this side of the pond).

It sets out once again how significant anti-social and disorder crimes are because ‘a government’s inability to control even a minor crime like graffiti signaled to citizens that it certainly couldn’t handle more serious ones. Disorder, therefore, was creating a crisis that threatened all segments of urban life.’ These ‘minor’ crimes should not be ignored.

As violent crime creeps up in Britain, this is an informative read.


  1. > Christine Emba in the Washington Post believes that ‘now could be the time to reintroduce virtues such as prudence, temperance, respect and even love.

    This moralist preaching from a town harlot is so hilarious! And in WashPo, of all of the places! “I had my ride. Now I want to settle. It’s time to change our collective attitudes to sex because I am no longer in a mood for hookups!”

    “Because here’s the thing. We won’t die of having less sex (indeed, no one ever has). Somehow, people will still find ways to meet, mate and propagate the species. If you are a decent person, the prospect of a clearer, more boundaried sexual ethic should not frighten you.”

    Sure. PEOPLE will find ways to meet. If you are a DECENT PERSON then surely you’ll find someone right.

    And if you didn’t? Well, maybe you are NOT a decent enough person, eh? Perhaps you are a worthless piece of garbage nobody wants? But don’t you worry! You see – other, mode decent, people will find a way to save our species. Just not you. Sorry.

    Ouch. That stings. You just made 20% of British women in their late 40s, who are unmarried and childless, to cry. Again. Third time for today, and it’s not even lunchtime yet.

    Do you want clearer, more boundaried sexual ethic? Make sure your daughter does not sleep around until the marriage. If 99% of other women will do the same – you’ll get back to good old times. But they wouldn’t, so you are stuck with infantilised non-committing men.

    • Any form of active policing in London will disproportionally affect minorities on a massive scale. It will be framed by the media to attack the forces and Tory government. Hence it will not be done until the radical change to current narrative of “every prosecution of a non-white non-christian/atheist person is a form of racial or religious oppression” changes.

        • I am not sure they did anything. Whole of the US experienced the drop in crime in late 90s. In NY, it was appropriated by the police force to get all the nice promotions. The theory was widely supported by the media, as it “confirmed” the narrative of the possibility of successful policy-based social engineering.

          But the real reasons? Well, here’s one analysis of it: http://pricetheory.uchicago

          “Six Factors that Played Little or No Role in the Crime Decline”:
          1) The Strong Economy of the 1990s
          2) Changing Demographics
          3) Better Policing Strategies
          4) Gun Control Laws
          5) Laws Allowing the Carrying of Concealed Weapons
          6) Increased Use of Capital Punishment

          “Four Factors That Explain the Decline in Crime”:
          1) Increases in the Number of Police
          2) The Rising Prison Population
          3) The Receding Crack Epidemic
          4) The Legalization of Abortion

          The lessons?

          Get more officers in the street.

          Let them do their job and throw the offenders to jails, not listening to left-wing rhetoric of “criminals are not guilty because inequality/discrimination/oppression made them so!”

          Treat all addictive substances extremely severe, as addicts and drug dealers are often behind the violent crime.

          Make sure scûm does not breed more scûm. Cutting welfare for single mothers, promoting abortions among underclass, – or incentivising fatherhood among most vulnerable communities – are all good strategies.

    • No doubt those toilets will be very popular with Muslim women. Perhaps the idea is that they will stay at home if they don’t like them.

  2. The broken windows thing gets a lot of attention, and it does have some validity. It’s always inviting to make comparisons between London and New York, because they are similar in size and the police forces and policing budgets are similar. It’s impossible to make exact comparisons, but I honestly don’t think there is much difference between the two in terms of crime rates. What is undoubtedly true is that New York has improved steadily and is way safer than almost any other American City. In England things are going downhill because we don’t have enough police. Where I am they just can’t attend unless there is a serious crime underway, so forget turning out for anti social behaviour. And trust me they hate it. As this is CW I’m sure there will be a stampede to blame political correctness/immigrants/transsexuals/leftists/gays/the BBC/remainers/Justin Welby. But it is purely and simply lack of resources,and it’s getting worse.

    • If it is purely a lack of resources how can they spend so much time investigating “hate crimes” many of which are trivial in nature and are based on politically motivated allegations?

      • Well lets put aside the fact that hate crimes are a tiny proportion of all crimes. Hate crimes are crimes motivated by hatred. Leaving aside the motivation they are still crimes. They are mainly public order offences, a third are violent assaults and around 7% are criminal damage or arson. So you just want to ignore these then?

        I thought I had covered all the bases in my second last sentence but evidently not.

        • He might’ve not chosen the words right, but he has a point. The police are dangerously stretched, crimes against property are ignored in London, and even violent crimes are not being treated seriously enough.

          Yet, there is no shortage of funding and staff to act on an ever-growing number of PC-friendly initiatives, like monitoring the Internet for bullying of transgender individuals.

          I blame the insane punish/reward system, imposed by the British media. As a police chief, you’ll hardly get extra-blame for a violent crime wave (and you can always parry it with “not enough funding” excuse), but a loud public campaign for, say, LGBT support will contribute to your career.

          The current PC-obsessed system favours shameless opportunists, I am afraid. That’s what we had in late USSR, where efficacy was far second to following the Party line when it came to career advancement. You have the same now. Just look at Cressida Dîck.

          • I ain’t gonna be popular with this, I expect but the part nobody wants to talk about is this. New York got better, and is now getting worse (although it is still better currently than London, by fair measurement) and the main reason Chicago, Baltimore, and others are simply failing was the ability and willingness to put offenders in jail, and keep them there. They may get rehabilitated although most do not, but at the very least while incarcerated they are not committing crimes on the street.

            If you do revolving door justice, well you are policing the same people over and over and as new ones show up it only gets worse. Funding is what is is, I suspect your police (like ours) spend enough money, too much of it on management and associated stuff (often boondoggles), if that money was spent by a lean committed organization, the situation would quickly improve.

          • They end up back on the streets due to the leftist approach to serving justice, “correction, not isolation”, “crime is caused by social causes, not by people”, etc.

            It’s the narrative. Modern policing is carrying water in a sieve – the heavily left-leaning establishment sides with the criminals, not the police.

            Again, it’s the obvious thing for Russians, because that’s what we had back in the USSR: Soviet state considered violent criminals to be, basically, good people, who got in trouble due to unfair bourgeoise system. There were massive amnesties by Bolsheviks, and criminals were considered to be their ally against political dissidents and “class enemies”, with political commissars looking the other way while criminal thugs were raping and killing petite bourgeoisie women.

          • Obvious here, as well. Because we have cities that do that very thing, but whole states where we put them away, and occasionally down. It works. If one take the top five crime cities out of the measure, the US is one of the safest places to live in the world, better than any place in Europe, close to Singapore, in fact. Those five cities, well, more American die in Chicago in a year than ever have in Iraq, including the year where we fought an actual war there.

      • Not to mention “historic abuse” investigations which go on for months and tie up an enormous proportion of police and the courts’ time – three quarters, is it?

    • > But it is purely and simply lack of resources,and it’s getting worse.

      Absolutely. They have the same problem in Sweden. Especially in Malmo. I wonder why.

    • It it is not just a lack of resources. My son is a Police Officer and I went to his swearing in ceremony where he swore to “keep the peace”. You cannot keep it if it does not exist. People are more intolerant, drunk, use drugs and untruthful than they were 20 years ago and it’s getting worse. My daughter used to work in fraud and has left because of utterly disgraceful moral values – people even on high salaries, steal from their employers and play the system on sick days.
      The problem is lack of social cohesion and amoral values.

    • Couldn’t agree less – you’re closer to the mark near the end of your post but you’ve omitted the little discipline in schools, children pampered by parents and media, a slack judicial system……. reality TV plus other innane programmes……….

  3. How about actually putting people in prison if they commit crimes? Just a theory.

    Yes that would mean higher taxes. Stick a penny on income tax, and lets have a few more prisons and a few more prison officers.

    But as Nick CleggMuir is at large I’m sure I will be called a racist throwback reactionary who refuses to devote my income to the state so it can be misappropriated by his friends at the BBC.

    Don’t bother, Cleggy, I’ve “no platformed” you (blocked). Just like all your BBC/Guardian/University activist friends who refuse to countenance an entire side of the political spectrum in case their safe thoughts are challenged.

Comments are closed.