The demise of the Peace of Westphalia is imminent, and we face a period of chaos as the current paradigm unravels and the legitimacy of the existing system disappears.
The nation-states of the West are already being deconstructed by their own elites. The social contract has been broken, and its most basic provisions are no longer operating. Although the State claims a monopoly on violence, it fails to prevent the predation of violent criminals — especially Third World immigrants — on ordinary citizens.
The coming chaos is inherently unpredictable, but that hasn’t deterred us from taking a cold-eyed look at some of the possibilities. Fjordman and El Inglés see a violent conflict in Europe as all but inevitable, and Free Hal has proposed an outline for a non-violent private form of civil organization to be implemented as the welfare state collapses.
Ordinary people will not submit indefinitely to the depredations of lawlessness and disorder. If the State does not act to reverse the slide into multicultural chaos, at some point citizens will turn to alternative forms of protection, even those involving warlords, brigands, and gangsters. As the example of the Danish Hells Angels demonstrates, people prefer the limited and predictable violence of criminals of their own ethnic group over the indiscriminate mayhem of “enrichers”.
I have suggested that one form of resistance in the UK may come through the “football hooligans”, but today’s Daily Mail tells a story that is more in line with what Free Hal has suggested.
Is privately-purchased security a growing trend? Or is this an anomaly?
It’s obviously open only to those who are relatively well-off. Even so, it suggests that some English people are starting to think about alternative means of protecting themselves.
It makes me wonder two things:
| 1. | How long before the government decides to suppress this embarrassing demonstration of its own failure? | |
| 2. | How long will it be before people rebel against the massive burden of state taxation, given that they are forced to pay out of pocket for what their taxes are already supposed to cover? |
Here’s the story:
Neighbours Hire Their Own Police Force for £3 Each a Week- - - - - - - - -
There is always a price to pay for rising crime rates and an over-stretched police force.
But rarely is it so clear what that cost is. Residents of an affluent suburb in Southampton have decided to pay £3.15 a week to fund a private security force to patrol the streets.
Hundreds of residents who have ‘lost faith in the police force’ have clubbed together to hire the private team of uniformed officers to protect them from crime in the area.
Security firm Atraks says its team will use the powers of citizen arrest as they patrol the leafy streets of Upper Shirley to ‘prevent serious crime’ and ‘neutralise’ threats.
Eight uniformed officers equipped with handcuffs and stab vests will even escort homeowners to and from the bank or on shopping trips to ensure they are not mugged.
So far 337 people have signed up in the neighbourhood while a further 1,700 have said they will join once they see the service in action.
The Atraks service — which is being tried out for free — costs £3.15 a week or residents can make an annual, one-off payment of £163.80.
Atraks needs 500 people to sign up to the scheme within a three-square-mile area for it to go ahead full time.
It is claimed all residents within this area would benefit from the scheme — not just those who had contributed to the cost.
Upper Shirley is one of the most affluent parts of Southampton but is close to a number of run-down areas.
One resident, Paul Graham, said he has agreed to pay for the scheme because he thinks the Atraks officers will prevent crime, rather than just respond to it.
The 28-year-old van driver said: ‘It’s not a lot of money to pay for having peace of mind. If someone is patrolling the streets at night then it’s definitely going to stop some crime from taking place.
‘We do see the police now and again around here but they are always busy with other things and don’t have time to drive down every street.
‘They will come if you call them but I think the Atraks scheme will be much more preventative.’
Another resident, an elderly woman who wished to remain anonymous, said: ‘It is ludicrous that we pay our taxes and then have to pay again for a decent level of protection but I don’t see any other option.’
Despite the widespread support, the scheme has come under fire from critics who say it will exaggerate the fear of violence.
But Dave MacLean, who launched Atraks two years ago, said he was acting after canvassing the opinions of local residents.
The 26-year-old former dog handler said: ‘Most said they were fed up with the level of protection offered by the police and had lost faith. The police should be here to protect us and a company like ours shouldn’t really be needed.’
Atraks officers will not have any powers other than those afforded to all citizens.
But Mr MacLean said his team of eight officers will talk to residents and be a visible presence on the streets to deter criminals.
They will also patrol outside schools, provide escorts to shops and banks, respond to alarms and help disperse street gangs. The service will involve dedicated patrols of officers trained in ‘handcuffing, crime scene preservation, statement taking and firefighting’.
But local Labour MP Alan Whitehead criticised the scheme, saying it was ‘based on exaggerating both a fear of crime and their own legal and practical powers in responding to concerns’.
He added: ‘I remain of the view that a paid vigilante service is not the best way to ensure that our communities are kept safe.’
Hat tip: Lexington.
19 comments:
"But local Labour MP Alan Whitehead criticised the scheme, saying it was ‘based on exaggerating both a fear of crime and their own legal and practical powers in responding to concerns’. He added: ‘I remain of the view that a paid vigilante service is not the best way to ensure that our communities are kept safe.’"
Someone ought to remind Mr. Whitehead of the quote of Sir Robert Peel, the 19th century govt minister who founded the so-called "Peelers" or "Bobbies", the official British National Police:
"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 on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence." Even a Labourite ought to be able to understand that idea.
"Run down areas" aka council estates, the scourge of British society. What proportion of criminals and anti-social yobs come from council houses? People who pay nothing like the commercial rent for their properties and whose maintenance is paid for by the general tax payer.
The State got there first - any tourist visiting last years Edinburgh Festival would have noticed on the High Street - that they were in fact being physically policed and monitored (CCTV) by private security firms employed by the local council, these security firms have dubious links (ex - football casuals).
The principle is this - 'recruitment of citizens to a "responsibilisation strategy" - people to police themselves and monitor their neighbours.'
The State via the courts will back up the "responsibilisation" security guard/neighbour policeman. It has nothing to do with the State losing control, it is more control the cultural relativism way.
At first glance, Crisis of Western Civilization seems a bit overboard, but after reading the article and pondering it's significance, I'm not so sure. My interest now is focused on the PC Authority and wondering what their reaction to this clear act of citizens banding together for mutual support, the bedrock of the modern representative republic nation state, freedom and democracy will be. We all now how strongly they believe that in spite of the evidence to the contrary, only they know what's best for all.
Given the early use of the dreaded "V" for vigilante, I believe we can take a guess as to what the PC Authorities think about all this unauthorized freedom from their version of reality.
An additional layer of private security may serve as a form of resistence but it's value is only temporary unless the issues that caused such a need are addressed.
I generally take two friends along whenever I go into a "troubled" area; Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson. Unfortunately, that option no longer exists in England. How's that disarmament working out for you?
One of the incredible aspects of this story is how cheap this private police force is : £ 3.15 a week ?
Compare that with what practically everybody these days pays for Internet access, for cell-phone use, or even for public transport if they are city-dwellers...
Hell, compare it with your taxes ! If an extra £ 3.15 a week is all that's standing between you and a peaceful life in your neighbourhood, wouldn't most people give them away without a second thought?
What does that exactly tell us about the gigantic waste that the socialist state has become ?
This is actually the most hopeful sign for Britain I've seen in years: ordinary British subjects taking stock of their government, their fears, and their resources, and taking their safety into their own hands.
Perhaps British good sense isn't dead after all. Now, here in America, it's the federal government we need to protect ourselves from. That's going to take a little more thought.
Sounds like a good idea. Now lets see what kind of people this company hires? Chances are they are still slaves to the PC thought that infects the current UK. It wont be long before you have foxes guarding the hen house. Here in the good ol USA we have tons of private security companies who are littered with ex-cons , "reformed gang members" and people prone to violence who "somehow" make it through the vetting process. I hope it works, I sincerely do. But I think it will only be a matter of time before we read about one of these guys going rogue or see Burqua wearing private cops.
This is a very good effort. I hope it will spread. But unfortunately, as you said, we can expect our governments to suppress these efforts. This one however, might have a sufficiently low profile to get away with it. We'll see.
However, I don't agree that this measure "is more in line with what Free Hal has suggested". You can include me and Fjordman and El Ingles in this. We have been talking about things like this for years. E.g. here about Rutkowski Patrol (the real A-team?).
The difference is instead that Free Hal considers it evil to do anything beyond these sort of measures. Any sensible person will prefer peaceful measures before violent ones. But the point is that we have to be prepared for actually doing the violent ones. People who emasculate themselves from doing such things are easy targets, and quickly identified as such by predators. Read more of my criticism of Free Hal in the Hellish Saviors thread.
According to Free Hal, violence that is not in self-defence will necessarily lead to genocide in this situation (haven't we heard this before?) Therefore any coercion or any form of ethic cleansing is taboo for him. He rather sees European civilization vanish and white people perishing, than having anything like this. So in the future Utopia of Free Hal, we have a moral obligation to keep Muslim enclaves within our lands. So there will be no real difference from today, only that the state is gone and there is anarchy. Which is hardly an improvement.
The excellent Atraks service, in the article above, has to be seen in the proper perspective.
Power rests ultimately on violence. With a state monopoly on violence we can have a bubble, within which we can operate without having to follow the logic of violence. However, if the bubble bursts we are back in a Hobbesian situation of the law of the "jungle".
The modern Westerner has lived so long in such a protected bubble that he has forgotten these most basic social laws. Which makes him completely unprepared for a situation when the bubble bursts.
There are several layers of this protection. At the largest level we have things as Pax Romana or Pax America. Smaller European states are unable to protect themselves against a powerful foreign aggressor. In fact the whole of EU is ultimately protected by American military power. It's American military power that keeps invasions from Russia (or Islamic countries or China) away.
The next level is the state, with its monopoly on violence within its domain, which thwart the creation of private armies, and in general the descendence into anarchy.
The third layer is the police, deterring crime and dealing with criminals. Crime doesn't disappear just because we have created a bubble of peace protected by military power. This is the role of the police.
The Atraks services only addresses this last layer, i.e. replacing the police. But it won't help much in a situation where all of above layers have broken apart. When there is no more any state monopoly of violence, and no longer the protective wings of an empire. Then there's nothing stopping the Muslims from creating private armies, or Russia to invade.
In this situation people would not hire Atraks, but rather the "Seven Samurais". It's of course possible that some of the Atraks companies change name into "The Seven Samurias Inc." But not even Seven Samurais would be enough in such a situation. If we want to create peace again we will have to build private armies, which goes on offense against the Muslim enclaves, to rid us of the cause of the chaos.
Modern Westerners in general are completely unable to visualize this sort of situation. As discussed between Queen and the Baron in a previous Hells Angles thread, it's really a return to feudalism. Quite as I have pointed out many times: this is how the aristocracy was built in the first place. The aristocracy were the Samurais, the superior fighters, who could provide protection and create peace. When physical protection once again becomes the focal priority, we are back to this kind of logic.
Hi Baron,
Thank you for posting this thread, which I find very good news.
It is in line with my overall proposal. In fact, take my word that I and a colleague have considered putting forward just such a service ourselves. The only thing which made me hesitate is my cautious estimation of people’s longterm willingness to pay, and the necessity of rising crime rates which are not a given even during rising crisis.
I would appreciate feedback from Gov-ers on the pure business side of such a proposal.
Privatised public security enables people to secure order, without having to defer to the competing Brutes-R-Us outfits like the Hell’s Angels. Subscribers to privatised public safety can also choose privatised law when states break down, rather than having to obey whatever law the Angels declare.
It’s tempting to see this as a race between forces of privatised order and forces of brutality and disorder. We have this welcome development on the one hand, competing on the other hand with the Hell’s Angels in Denmark, and the Birmingham anti-Jihad demo which you reported on today.
But it isn’t a straightforward race. The tendency of my privatised law and order proposal is that it only has to be 1% successful eventually to be 100% successful. I.e. if it is able to establish a small critical mass then its much greater strength, and natural preferability, will mean that victims of Hell’s Angels law, or Sharia law, will either have to join my system or be edged out. And if either of them is ineligible to join, e.g. under an anti-Islam preference, then being edged out is the only option.
Whilst the Birmingham demo shows heartening spirit which I find very seductive, it is a poor model. Those methods writ large will probably be ineffectual, and will inevitably end up the same way as the Hell’s Angels methods. Or rather the methods of the more violent warlords who supersede them in violence.
I have great respect for Atraks and Mr. MacLean. I don’t have much respect for gangsterism, or, sadly, for demonstrators fighting in the street – however appealing the latter may seem after decades of repressive PC twaddle.
Best wishes,
Hal
In the other thread I tried to explain the above to Free Hal, and his answer was:
I agree that societies must protect themselves from physical aggressors, and enforce internal order. I disagree, in that people who do something because they genuinely want to will do it more and better than people who do it because they’re compelled to.
You can’t force someone to become a millionaire by putting a gun to his head. But give him the freedom to do so and he’ll grab it. Or ask Dymphna if it is easier getting kids out of bed on Christmas morning, than on a school day? There are plentiful historical examples (Thermopylae, Battle of Britain, Operation Barbarossa) but I’m not going to get involved with what I have referred to as your superior doom-saying, and arid historicism – a charge which I think is justified.
Free Hal has missed the point and the whole context completely. He thinks that I'm saying that people are only motivated my coercion. Well, not at all, and this is (obviously!) not even the context I'm talking of.
All the things that Free Hal talks about works within a protective bubble, and becomes the main rule there, and the people do not have to follow the logic of violence. But this protective bubble is itself based on the principle of violence -- our free society is ultimately protected by military power.
Sometimes the protective bubble (after long and enduring safety) makes people feel so safe that they forget what it is based on (sort of like domesticized animals). The Westerners of today is the epitomial example of this.
I'm not surprised that Free Hal completely miss my point, since the insight about these things is completely absent from his Rollback article and his other comments. He fails to see the significance of the state's monopoly on violence. He thinks the absence of a functioning state will make things easier for us. But while it indeed would open up many possibilities, it certainly won't make things easier for us. Free Hal, as so many Westerners, is taking too much for granted, which comes from our protection by the principle of violence, by the state, and which will evaporate if the state collapses. And then we'll have the principle of violence just outside our door.
Free Hal,
Privatised public security enables people to secure order, without having to defer to the competing Brutes-R-Us outfits like the Hell’s Angels.
While I would myself hire Atraks rather than Hells Angels, I would be very content to have Hell's Angels or similar Brutes-R-Us in my neighbourhood. Since they do things that Atraks would never do.
Whilst the Birmingham demo shows heartening spirit which I find very seductive, it is a poor model. Those methods writ large will probably be ineffectual, and will inevitably end up the same way as the Hell’s Angels methods.
Atraks, Hell's Angles and the football gangs are complementing each other. Hells Angles (or the future warlords) know how to "speak" to the Muslims in a language they understand, i.e. the language of offensive violence. Atraks (or their future equivalence) won't be doing that. They won't be intimidating the Muslims, they won't threaten their families, they won't be parading the streets in power demonstrations, they won't engage in offensive turf grabbing. They won't be doing anything that makes the Muslims feel compelled to leave our land.
The obvious advantage in hiring Atraks is that it's a clean business agreement, and not any mafia/feudalism sort of deal. I would not "hire" Hell's Angels at this point. However, had I been into motorbiking I would consider joining them.
(further up)
my coercion --> by coercion
I had written:
“While I would myself hire Atraks rather than Hells Angels, I would be very content to have Hell's Angels or similar Brutes-R-Us in my neighbourhood. Since they do things that Atraks would never do.”, i.e. “intimidating the Muslims, … threaten their families, … parading the streets in power demonstrations, … engage in offensive turf grabbing.”
Free Hal answered:
Your appear to modify your criticism of my proposal in that you prefer privatised security for internal order – the prevention and punishment of crime, enforcement of contracts, etc. But you still want HA for external security.
No Hal. This was not your proposal. This is a service by Atraks in Southampton, which they instituted without first consulting you.
Your proposal is that when the state collapses (something you look forward to and I don't) we would be building an anarcho-capitalistic utopia, and that we should go on hiring companies like Atraks. And that's a whole different thing, because it's a wholly different situation. And my criticism of that hasn't changed a bit.
The reason why Atraks is a good choice today is that the system hasn't collapsed yet. You have a rather rosy picture of how it would be after a system collapse. However, if everything would be as nicely in order after a collapse of the state, as you proclaim, in a country full of Muslim enclaves etc., and these righteous companies were still the best option for protection, then of course I would continue to hire them. It's just that this is not how I expect things to be.
Your whole proposal is merely ideologized theorizing about an ideal system that never existed in history (haven't we heard all this before?). Read some history instead, and take human nature and power struggles, that actually happened, in consideration instead. Study in history what actually happened in societies going through a collapse, of the state, of their monetary system, etc.
Unlike you I don't want the state to collapse, and I don't think it will in most places. What I think will happen is that the world order of American Hegemony will collapse. In this situation we will get Pinochets and Francos taking over the states across Europe. These sort of leaders are of course impossible while the American Hegemony is intact.
However, the situation will be dire, and they will not be able to control the whole country, at least not initially. There will be areas of anarchy, which the population will consider as hell spots, but which you will probably consider "paradises".
But the point is that with the fall of American Hegemony, it will be possible to strengthen the power of the states in Europe (the EU will of course fall together with American Hegemony, NATO, etc.)
That's a rather cool idea :)
Instead of deriding Atraks, government and police should evaluate what goes on and take appropriate action - like dealing with the crime...
But the same thing happens here in Denmark. When HA issued the Jackal Manifesto, it was derided by the police because of its source, while they would have done better looking at the problems and dealing with them.
This is a wakeup call for police and government. Unfortunately, they seem to just hammer the Snooze button :(
Post a Comment