Saturday, August 13, 2011

Why were police most alarmed about the peaceful English?

Looting in Croydon, London
What was striking about the recent riots in England? The police command kept a relatively low profile in tackling the rioters themselves, with police standing off at times whilst the looting was taking place. Even when private homes were being invaded in Notting Hill or when diners in restaurants were being robbed of their wedding rings, there were no alarmed statements from the police.

Nor did the police come out with public statements of alarm when some ethnic groups came out to defend their areas. If anything, the Sikhs and Turks were treated favourably in the media - there were even photos of Sikhs brandishing swords with positive media reports alongside.

But when a group of white Englishmen got together in Eltham, London, to peacfully defend their high street, the police command suddenly became alarmed and issued warnings that this turn of events was "enormous" and "worrying" and that it might add a "racial element" to the riots.

What's going on here? Why is it OK for Sikhs or Turks to stand together against the rioters but not white Englishmen? Why, in the middle of a riot, do police worry most about a gathering of anti-riot whites?

There was a useful discussion of this at View from the Right. A reader, Philip M, wrote:

The thing that will really stay with me about these riots is the way that the Turks and Bangladeshis were praised for standing up to the riots, yet the moment that English people tried to do the same thing they were dismissed as racist yobs and thugs. The only real unity of purpose and firmness that has been shown by the police, media, and establishment has been in condemning even the possibility of English people defending themselves. A senior police officer on NewsNight actually said: "If white middle class people [he obviously means English people] form a gang to attack these rioters they are no better than the other gangs" [meaning the gangs doing the rioting].

Philip M then goes on to give a good explanation for the police reaction:

The paralysis and uncertainty that was shown by the police and politicians in facing these gangs is largely because they were dominated and led by blacks. White liberals simply do not feel they have the moral legitimacy to challenge the rioters or the culture that they come from because they know the culture of the underclass is largely a black, gangster culture, and to critisise this culture would be racist. Any response to combat the violence by English people will therefore also be racist. This is why they were so relieved to see Turks and Bangladeshis defending themselves. These were people taking on the rioters that they could support without fear.

That's a similar point to one that I have made before about left-liberalism. There are left-liberals who explain inequality by claiming that "whiteness" is an artificial construct invented to uphold privilege over those categorised as "non-white". Therefore, whites are held to be uniquely guilty of racism and the racial oppression of others and any positive expression of whiteness is thought to be motivated by a desire to uphold "white supremacy".

If you are a white person who buys into this theory, then you lose moral standing - not so much within the white community - but relative to non-whites. You become a member of an oppressor class who carries moral guilt toward the non-white other. You will also become hypersensitive to accusations that you are acting in a "racist" way toward non-whites.

So Philip M's argument is well within the bounds of possibility. Lawrence Auster thinks so too; he made this comment in response to what Philip M wrote:

it's the same with U.S. conservatives who are always looking for salvation through a black conservative or a Hispanic conservative. These conservatives want nonwhites to take controversial positions on social issues that they, the conservatives, feel they lack the standing to take themselves. They are contemptible cowards, helplessly under the thumb of the liberalism they claim to oppose.

The key word here is cowardice. Not a physical cowardice but a certain kind of moral cowardice. It would be like a man who thinks aspects of feminism are wrong but who won't speak out against it himself because he thinks that as a man he has no place or standing to make such criticisms. Such a man is really, as Lawrence Auster puts it, still "under the thumb" of the feminism he holds himself to be an opponent of.

So what can we say about the English police commanders? They are either true believers in an anti-white ideology - in which case they are enemies of the majority of the population they are supposed to be protecting, or else they are moral cowards who can't or won't overcome the feeling that they have no moral standing when it comes to the "non-white other".

13 comments:

  1. Thanks Mark. This needed to be said.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nice last paragraph. Powerful.

    It is true, the refusal to stand up to the establishment is a form of cowardice.

    This is why the left scream so loud every time anyone remotely anti-liberal and white starts gaining popular support.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Talking of moral cowards, and leaving aside for one moment Girlydave at 10 Downing Street, it's time London's Mayor Johnson - alias Bozo Boris the Baboons' Broom-Wielding B*tch - was called out:

    http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/8/9/1312903309115/Boris-Johnson-addresses-t-007.jpg

    From the Wikipedia entry on Johnson:

    "In 2004, British newspapers reported that Boris Johnson had had a four-year affair with Petronella Wyatt. ... Although Johnson had promised to leave his wife, after a break-up, they had rekindled their relationship during which Wyatt had become pregnant and then had an abortion."

    Right. So Boris Johnson cheats on his wife, thinks with his penis, impregnates his whore and lets said whore murder his child, yet we're expected to hail him as some sort of great conservative moral hero. I think even Kilroy would be struggling to depict that pseudo-con in a favourable light.

    ReplyDelete
  4. ""Right. So Boris Johnson cheats on his wife, thinks with his penis, impregnates his whore and lets said whore murder his child, yet we're expected to hail him as some sort of great conservative moral hero.""

    Boris is like many British "Conservativez", he has no real connection with, or love for, his country and the people who live in it.

    I would say his Turkish ancestry would make him less likely to be realistic on many subjects, but those with 100% blood ties to Britain are not exactl covering themselves with glory.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Because race realism and nationalism is seen as wrong in the liberal worldview. To liberalism a thing such as the preservation of a nation is pure evil. In short good is evil, evil is good and that is while there is such thing as right and wrong. Go figure.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The key word here is cowardice. Not a physical cowardice but a certain kind of moral cowardice.

    I think that with few exceptions, the British were physically cowardly as well as morally cowardly. In this I include the government, the police, and the general population. They cowered in their homes and hoped the whole thing would just go away without any action on their part. And you saw that picture of the guy tamely taking off his clothes in front of the black thug. That is a sign of a society that is rotten beyond redemption.

    ReplyDelete
  7. There's also the whole Nazi undead and liberal obsession with fascism and Nazis.

    The Nazi Undead

    ReplyDelete
  8. If my own capacity for belly-laughs hadn't been exhausted by the welcome tidings of Amy Winehouse's demise, I would be doubled up with mirth by the news today that Cameron has now started talking about setting up some sort of public morals committee in response to the riots.

    Given that Cameron's enthusiasm for abortion and sodomy is a matter of record, I guess we should be grateful that he and his fellow pro-aborts can't recruit Mexico's Marcel Maciel, England's Kit Cunningham, Australia's Ronald Conway, Austria's Cardinal Groer, or other members of the 'Catholic' pervert fraternity, who are all, alas, ineligible to serve on a present-day committee by reason of being dead.

    Although, on consideration, we might ask exactly why a dead pervert should be any less attractive to a Cameron-devised gabfest than a live pervert. After all, we are told ad nauseam that 'discrimination' against homosexuals in our midst is intrinsically evil and 'bigoted'. Why, then, should dung-punchers be discriminated against merely because they are no longer alive?

    At least by recruiting a few corpses to his quango, Cameron might be assured of the necrophiliac vote. Whether he will ever get, or indeed deserve, any other vote, others may judge.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Fake "conservatives" and right-liberals alongside left-liberals and leftists are sad sight indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  10. There's another sort of fear at work too. The liberals have proven to be quite ruthless in attacking anyone who disagrees with them. They will use the courts, the legal system, and public theater (er, pardon a Yank, is that theatre in Oz?) to harrass their opponents. And if that fails, they'll attempt to prevent the courts and police from protecting conservatives while enforcer goons assault them or their property.

    Individual conservatives are easy prey for organized leftists. So it's critical for leftists to prevent conservatives from getting used to organizing themselves in self-defense.

    ReplyDelete
  11. You know, we were discussing the exact same thing over at TC. We saw all the reports of people defending themselves, and we were like, "Where are the Englishmen?" Then we found some reports of Englishmen standing guard, and they were all negative. It was weird.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Alte said...

    "Then we found some reports of Englishmen standing guard, and they were all negative. It was weird."

    Sadly not that weird.

    ReplyDelete
  13. What's going on here? Why is it OK for Sikhs or Turks to stand together against the rioters but not white Englishmen? Why, in the middle of a riot, do police worry most about a gathering of anti-riot whites?

    Well Mark, the short answer is that Caucasians are being set up for genocide. We are legally despised and dehumanized. We are singled out for mockery and derision, while all other groups are absolutely off-limits. We are seen as unique among the peoples of the world in that we have no culture, no homeland, and no identity, and our history is a long list of evil deeds.

    The fact that we are still the majority in our own lands prevents, for the time being, the traditional gears of genocide from turning. In response, the enemy must resort to a sort of low-level guerrilla war, but it looks like they're getting impatient.

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.