Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Theodore Dalrymple on the London riots

In The Australian.

British youth leads the Western world in almost all aspects of social pathology, from teenage pregnancy to drug taking, from drunkenness to violent criminality. There is no form of bad behaviour that our version of the welfare state has not sought out and subsidised.

British children are much likelier to have a television in their bedroom than a father living at home. One-third of them never eat a meal at a table with another member of their household -- family is not the word for the social arrangements of the people in the areas from which the rioters mainly come. They are therefore radically unsocialised and deeply egotistical, viewing relations with other human beings in the same way as Lenin: Who whom, who does what to whom. By the time they grow up, they are destined not only for unemployment but unemployability.

Comments (6)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
Dalrymple has an article on the riots in the City Journal, where he has been commenting on British (and European) social pathology for 17 years. Here it is: http://www.city-journal.org/2011/eon0810td.html
Some evidence please!

Insults are cheap. Documenting specific failures of social arrangements require actual facts.

I'm not a fan of most versions of the modern welfare state, but the theory that all we need for a good society is for the rich to have all the money is BS.
3 replies · active 712 weeks ago
I don't think Dalrymple says or implies that all we need for a good society is for the rich to have all the money. Anyway, here is another of his: http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon_2_20_02td.ht...
And here is someon on Dalrymple: http://crossroadsmag.eu/2006/11/review-making-bad...

"In his newest book, “Romancing Opiates: Pharmacological Lies and the Addiction Bureaucracy”, and in the Tans Lecture, entitled “Making bad decisions, about the way we think of social problems”, Dalrymple says heroin addicts are worthy of little tolerance. It is wrong to treat them as inanimate objects who are forced by societal evils to indulge into drugs. Welfare programs and medical treatments (like methadone clinics) aimed at “curing” addicts are pointless. While this claim is highly disputed, after treating around 15,000 troubled patients in Britain’s inner city, Dalrymple certainly has gained the authority to share his controversial ideas."

The rest of the article explains the above.
And this explains even more: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-popp...

"Furthermore, I discovered in the prison in which I worked that 67% of heroin addicts had been imprisoned before they ever took heroin. Since only one in 20 crimes in Britain leads to a conviction, and since most first-time prisoners have been convicted 10 times before they are ever imprisoned, it is safe to assume that most heroin addicts were confirmed and habitual criminals before they ever took heroin. In other words, whatever caused them to commit crimes in all probability caused them also to take heroin: perhaps an adversarial stance to the world caused by the emotional, spiritual, cultural and intellectual vacuity of their lives."
Ask and ye shall receive: http://www.city-journal.org/html/9_1_oh_to_be.htm...

"I warned her as graphically as I could that she was already well down the slippery slope leading to poverty and misery—that, as I knew from the experience of untold patients, she would soon have a succession of possessive, exploitative, and violent boyfriends, unless she changed her life. I told her that in the past few days, I had seen two women patients who had had their heads rammed down the lavatory, one who had had her head smashed through a window and her throat cut on the shards of glass, one who had had her arm, jaw, and skull broken, and one who had been suspended by her ankles from a tenth-floor window to the tune of, "Die, you bitch!"

"I can look after myself," said my 17-year-old.

"But men are stronger than women," I said. "When it comes to violence, they are at an advantage."

"That's a sexist thing to say," she replied.

A girl who had absorbed nothing at school had nevertheless absorbed the shibboleths of political correctness in general and of feminism in particular.

"But it's a plain, straightforward, and inescapable fact," I said.

"It's sexist," she reiterated firmly.

A stubborn refusal to face inconvenient facts, no matter how obvious, now pervades our attitude toward relations between the sexes. An ideological filter of wishful thinking strains out anything we'd prefer not to acknowledge about these eternally difficult and contested relations, with predictably disastrous results.

I meet with this refusal everywhere, even among the nursing staff of my ward. Intelligent and capable, as decent and dedicated a group of people as I know, they seem, in the matter of judging the character of men, utterly, almost willfully, incompetent."

Post a new comment

Comments by