Hot Town, Riots in the City

In my last article, I talked about liberalism and its growing failure as a political system, in large part because of its failure to "deliver the goods." Clearly, though, there are different kinds of goods; and the liberal state's inability to provide one kind is increasingly threatening it on its most basic level.

Since the media's good at hiding stories like this, it may have escaped your attention, but as usually happens this time of year, parts of Europe are in crisis--again. It started almost two weeks ago, in the suburbs of Stockholm, Sweden, where dozens of cars were burned for several nights in a row, repeated attacks on police have taken place, and so on. General riotous behavior, replete with the apparently-required "car barbecues" (or "carbecues," if you will). Who are the culprits? Well, it took several days, but eventually the media began reporting that this was the work of young Muslims, heavily concentrated in the neighborhood.

A Swedish youth organization tried to diffuse responsibility by pointing out that these suburbs have the highest rate of youth unemployment in the country, and that "We need to understand the underlying motives for the riots, and understand why they are taking place." Which, apparently, is why people in what has been described as traditional Muslim garb have been burning cars and assaulting Jews and their synagogues: Because they're unemployed and no one "understands" them. Got it.

Not that there's a deliberate connection between one and the other, but there has been a similar outbreak of violence in Britain. Not long after the Stockholm riots started, a U.K. soldier was horribly hacked to death by two men with machetes. His crime? Wearing a "Help for Heroes" T-Shirt--which, as everyone knows, is an obvious sign of Western imperialism and dominance and such. The radicalized youths who committed the atrocity proudly announced that they did it in the name of their Islamic brethren. In the days since, there seems to have been at least one copycat crime proceeding from this, in France, both involving young Muslim men.

But don't worry. After several days of slowness and dithering, the responsible authorities at all these flashpoints have kicked into action and are cracking down on these lawbreakers.....Ha! Hahaha!! Oh, I'm just kidding. They're actually going after the people protesting the violence.

In the past few days, police have made numerous arrests of members of the English Defence League, described as a "far-right" organization calling for tighter immigration controls, the expulsion of radical imams from Britain, and the general protection of Western cultural values. Apparently a few of their members seem to have attributed these crimes to Muslims as a group; therefore it's a hate crime, and there has been pressure from government, the media, and much of "enlightened society" to not only arrest those responsible but eliminate private funding for the group altogether. Meanwhile, back in Scandinavia, a number of citizens who took up arms to defend their property from the rioters found themselves denounced as "vigilantes" and "hooligans" and actively prevented by police from trying to break up packs of vandals. This, on the heels of the Stockholm Police Chief admitting official policy was to do "as little as possible" to interfere with the rioters. Again, the excuse is that some are nationalists or neo-Nazis, though there doesn't seem to be any hard evidence that this is the case.

Look, I'm not here to defend this individual or that organization. As we've repeatedly discussed, there's racial animosity on all sides in Europe, and at least a few of these protestors have been caught using racist language. A more pressing question is, why should anyone be surprised that this is taking place? I use the examples of Islamic violence because they're so recent, but the fact is, in a country like Britain, where a woman can be arrested for trying to ward off the guys robbing her with a toy gun (apparently the prospect of getting shot was damaging to their sense of well-being or something), how can one maintain with a straight face that the state is there to protect its citizenry? Because in cases like these, it seems that government policy is to enforce multiculturalism, sooth hurt feelings, and enhance all-around "tolerance," even at the cost of law-abiding citizens' safety.

I guess for some people, this is a worthy goal. But it does raise the question of what right such a state has to expect its people's loyalty and obedience. I'm not one of those people who think the government exists solely because of a social contract with its citizens or whatever, but it definitely derives its legitimacy from an expectation that it will protect the people over which it has power. Any ideology which seriously undermines that expectation is bound to break that relationship. And this may be the ultimate failure of liberalism today--its goals have, in certain cases, led it into direct opposition with the most basic needs of the public. The longer "tolerance" and "acceptance" continue to be the top priority of England, Sweden, and other countries, the greater this tendency towards violence and division will be.