What Can Raoul Moat Teach Us?

When the ‘manhunt’ finally came to an end, as Raoul Moat’s forefinger did the decent thing, he should have taught around 500 of our MPs and Peers a lesson in morality.  We could hardly expect to give them a bottle of whisky and a revolver and go and do the decent thing, could we.  Ambush Predator quoted some Phil Woolas’ diary entries the other day and from these we could only expect him to think the pistol was given because of our enduring love for his self-protection and that the whisky was a gift of our undying devotion.

Most social psychology has it that bullies and victims share much in common.  We need to know more and do more about the environment that forms them, notably schools, peers and ‘family’.  Bullies almost always do worse in school than those fated to go on as victims.  People like Moat and those around him needed help when they couldn’t get it, in order not to get into the traps of paranoid narcissism, needing to be screwed early by, and capable of being impressed by over-aged losers like Moat, and generally being made into an underclass.  None of us are free of blame in this, though I don’t say this to excuse those who become benefit-sponsored criminals.  That police are called to the many incidents they cause is a sure sign we don’t care.  They are just cheaper in keeping the lid on than the social, teaching and discipline services that are needed.  Cops may deal with these people with their fuckwit stereotyping, but that’s all the training we give them, so we must know they are going to fob-off the victims and wait until someone dies before they step in.

We have already created a whole range of other class-interests to cope with and take advantage of this situation.  Politicians may never have to keep promises,but they do have to make them.  Having things going wrong at the core of society allows many promises to be made.  Now all you need is a set of lying bureaucrats to produce ‘statistics’ that pretend something is being done.  These can be juggled about for decades.  On the one had burglaries can be got down by simple observation and intelligence sweeps, along with far tougher sentences for this crime than shop-lifting.  Shop-lifting goes up; we know crime really doesn’t go down and that criminals adjust.  This part of the argument disappears in the official claims, because cops have been told to get burglary down.  We never think, as they announce yet another successful burglary sweep and 300 arrests, that these sweeps are always successful, which rather suggests there are always people about doing burglary.  You might think they’d be a disappearing race with all the focus on their removal from our society; yet they seem in plentiful supply.

We might do a much better job at understanding not just the underclass, but all the classes we form.  My own guess is that we are not organised efficiently at all and are inside a matrix of genetic making we need to escape as surely as some fifteen year-old needing Moat needs to escape.  I suspect huge amounts of public expenditure is not created to deal with problems and provide opportunities, but is stolen by bureaucrats pretending to act on behalf of the underclass or in protecting us from it.

The way forward is to change the nature of our ‘interest group’ formation right through society, from crappy bullies like Moat to those media and political creeps who do us much more damage.  New technology should already be helping, but classically it is hindering.  Its use runs against management power interests, some thing found again and again in research.  Proper management information systems have equality of access, and as all our dumb MPs and the rest ever have in their favour is information kept close to their chests, they will do anything to prevent widespread access to real knowledge.

To mention that the average sub-Saharan IQ is under 75 and broadly that of what we once called educationally subnormal, is often seized on as racist.  Average IQ has been shown to equate in a very straight line with a set of miserable diseases afflicting populations.  Once one knows both these facts, it is impossible to think along the racist lines, except for perverse racists.  It may though be possible to hold that Africa may well have human populations in need a a lot of help because of disease factors and that its populations may need help in ways that would be otherwise patronising.  To have prissy, patronising PC nasties doing idiot diversity dances all over attempts to produce the truth is our modern problem.  Facts are often embarrassing.  We need to be able to embarrass ourselves.

I’d suggest that virtually none of us now do necessary work and that we are so dumb we haven’t even realised there is no need to these days.  Instead we have money circulating through a benefits’ system that would be better understood by recognising just how many are really in it and how it generates a class of worthies who make fortunes from it.  Just as an example, Moat got off 14 charges.  Who got the legal aid benefits?  How many cops would we need if there were no Moats and so on?  Such questions could lead us to a systems understanding quite different from thinking of Moat as a scumbag or hero, but as a focal point of public expenditure and benefit allocation.  Just how much cop, judge, social worker pay and lawyer loot has been focused through him?

There is a lot we might investigate in this way.  I noticed when I got a couple of million in research funding two decades ago and saw if frittered away.  It’s really hard to spend money on real problems or ideas and very easy to do more or less nothing and with the gold medal (I have two) as long as you feed the audit evaluator well (mostly with a barrage of figures and boxes of receipts).

Moat clearly had a mental breakdown.  He got more resources spent on him after the killings than we would have spent on a platoon of German paratroopers in WW2.  Nasty, killing rapists have attracted much less in recent past, whilst representing a much greater threat.  The expenditure cannot be justified in a society in which people with disabled kids often don’t eat because they can’t afford it.    Cops who think this was a priority should have to explain themselves to the relatives of other dead or those living under threat from scum they fob-off as neighbour disputes and anti-social behaviour, or the hundreds if women (and some men) raped by people a few trained baboons would have caught.  Instead of honesty, we have Inspector Gadget, often right, yet hiding both from his duty and conscience, on the basis that telling the truth will make him poor (that is not a higher rate benefit scrounger?) and the usual groundless superiority of his morality over that of the criminal underclass.  What we need is a new accounting in the open.

Advertisement