Since the coward MB-UK has blocked me for calling him on his obsession with hating all things US... maybe take a look at your own backyard before you post your garbage. Unlike the coward I wont block any comments.

By THEODORE DALRYMPLE
A few days ago at a
crowded bus-stop in the city of Nottingham, a fat youth of about 13
started to throw food at a friend. Some of it nearly hit me and landed
on the ground just beyond me, making a mess.
"Excuse me," I said to the youth, "could you pick that up?"


"Shut the f— up!" he snarled, with real hatred contorting his face.


Out of the mouths of babes and
sucklings, in England, come—obscenities. No one at the bus stop dared
say, much less do, anything. For increasingly, the English are a people
who know neither inner nor outer restraint. They turn to aggression, if
not to violence, the moment they are thwarted, even in trifles. And
those who are neither aggressive nor violent are by no means sure that
the law will take their side in the event of a fracas. It is better, or
easier, for them to pretend not to notice anything, even if it means
living in constant fear.
Under the circumstances, it is hardly
surprising that, according to a survey recently conducted by Lloyds
Bank, a fifth of all people with assets of more than $640,000 are
thinking of leaving the country. Personally I am surprised it is so few.
Other surveys have shown that at least 50% of the population wants to
leave, in the main to flee the other 50% of the population.
It is difficult to overstate the
deleterious effect on the quality of life in modern Britain of
incivility and bad behavior. One small manifestation is the littering of
the country. No hedgerow, even in the most beautiful countryside, is
without its discarded plastic bottles of soft drinks and wrappings of
take-away food. In the matter of litter, the British are now by far the
dirtiest people in the Western world, a sign of their unsocial mindset.
Every Friday and Saturday night, the
police riot vans come to my otherwise charming small market town in
Shropshire where, were it not for the mass drunkenness of young people,
no police would be needed. Not long ago I returned home just before
midnight to find, about a hundred yards from my front door, the police
bending solicitously over a collapsed, scantily clad and lumpen, drunken
young woman lying unconscious in her own vomit. There is only so much
of this kind of thing that one can take.


Public drunkenness is all too common a feature of the English landscape.


The
paralysis of the public administration in the face of the problem
induces a state of despair in the more civilized half of the population.
(The public sector now accounts for more than 50% of British GDP, so
the paralysis is not caused by a lack of resources.) Recently, for
example, three people stripped naked a vulnerable young man of low
intelligence, tied him to a lamppost, covered him in food, insulted him
and left him there for four hours, then cut him down so carelessly that
he banged his head on the ground (by the time he reached the hospital he
was in a state of hypothermia). They were not even sent to prison.
In other words, practically no
behavior is now beyond the pale for the British state. Sadly, the
freedom to behave badly is almost the only freedom valued by, or left
to, young Britons.
The people who want to flee Britain
are not economic migrants. It is not high taxes that they object to
(many want to move to France, where taxes are not low), but barbarism.
They are cultural refugees in search of a more civilized homeland, where
fewer people are uncouth or militantly vulgar.
What has caused this collapse of
civility in Britain, which was, within living memory, a civil country?
In my view, it is a demotic version of egalitariansim, allied with
multiculturalism.
Even middle-class people now behave in
an increasingly uncouth and rough fashion in Britain because they think
that by doing so they are expressing their solidarity with the lower
reaches of their society. Imitation, they think, is the highest form of
sympathy. This, of course, is an implicit insult to many of the poor,
for poverty and unmannerliness are by no means the same thing.
Multiculturalism is damaging because
it denies that, when it comes to culture, there is a better and a worse,
a higher and a lower—only difference. The word culture is used here in
its anthropological sense, that is to mean the totality of behavior that
is not directly biological.
Hence any conduct—lying scantily clad in a pool of vomit, for example—is part of a culture, and since all cultures, ex hypothesi,
are of equal worth, no one has the moral right to criticize, much less
forbid, any kind of behavior. And if I have to accept your culture, you
have to accept mine. If you don't like it—tough. Unfortunately, the
lowest level of culture is the easiest to reach and, again ex hypothesi, there is no reason to aim higher.
Incivility in Britain thus has a
militant or ideological edge to it. The uncivil British are not
uncivilized by default—they actively hate and repudiate civilization.