Friday, 12 August 2011

The Real Reason for the Riots


I've got it sussed - forget about all the explanations coming from the social scientists, the politicians, the police. As far as I'm concerned, the rot set in with the industrial revolution and the mass migration of peasants from the land to conurbations. Urbanisation was bound to lead to trouble. Cities should be dismantled and the inhabitants encouraged to live in communities of no larger than a couple of hundred, where everyone knows everyone else and recidivism means intolerable social stigmatisation and an embarrassing spell in the stocks.

Hang on - that means city chavs moving into the shires. Can't have that! Wall up the cities and keep them all inside - including the bent politicians, the corrupt police and rapacious bankers!

I've now got another theory; unemployed young men are being denied their basic instinct to be hunters (i.e. productive workers 'bringing home the bacon'). Looting provides an outlet for the primeval hunting instinct - albeit a socially unacceptable outlet.

Well, it's about as good as any other theory. I'm somewhere on the M5 or A30 now, so I don't really care. What's your pet theory?


9 comments:

  1. People have too much time on their hands and not enough to do... so why done they spent their time cleaning up the mess they made, making work for themseleves.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I blame Margaret Thatcher (I blame her for everything).

    ReplyDelete
  3. The world's never been the same since they set off all those masonic bombs.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This article seems to shed some light on the goals of a lot of the rioting - guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/09/uk-riots-psychology-of-looting -
    Also Ahmadinejad has called on the UN security council to intervene over the British government's handling of the unrest rocking the country. Who says he has no sense of humour!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Inclined to agree with Hay about diet contributing to the cause. As to remedies, yes, bring back the stocks, I say!

    ReplyDelete
  6. If nothing else, I agree with the part about the cities should be dismantled. Ah, but that might cost someone money.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I loved your first paragraph, and laughed at the second (in a good way :) I agree totally.....what else is a man to do when he has no space to be a man? Life doesn't accommodate the male instincts these days, does it? It certainly doesn't serve the females' either: all they feed is the lower nature of women and poke incessantly at their lust, greed, demands for more, their uncontrolled want want want gene, and their idiot behavior when they're told they're in charge or superior.

    There: I chucked a spanner in the works :)

    When I was in Florence I loved the thick thick walls that surround the city and kept out the invaders...the soldiers who lived in the city would go OUT to fight. Same with Rajasthan, which is where the warrior clans lived (and still do) in India: the state is dotted with forts, large and small, that are the protective community for a couple hundred or so, and the clans would unite occasionally and go out and fight. That, incidentally, is what started the sati business, the burning of widows. It was the warrior race. The women would wait back at the fort, and when a message came that their men had been defeated, they would light the sacrificial fires and take their lives. It was part honor/part practicality: the first thing the defeating clans would do is hotfoot it over to their victims' forts and ransack them for women and riches. No way a warrior woman would face that: the whole "death before dishonor" policy was in place.

    So there you go. I think. :)

    ReplyDelete
  8. I am glad that I have observed this blog. Ultimately anything not a crap, which we understand quite usually. The web site is lovingly maintained and up to date. So it really should be, thank you for this welcome transform

    ReplyDelete