Government will not use water cannon—and will apparently not use any force at all—to stop the riots

I’ve pointed out how Cameron in his statement outside 10 Downing Street did not actually say that he would stop the rioting, only that he felt bad for the victims, would help rebuild their communities, and would punish the rioters. What I sensed in Cameron’s statement turns out to be the official policy of his government.

James P. writes:

This is what happens when you put a gormless liberal female in charge of internal security! How utterly revolting.

The Home Secretary appeared to rule out sending water cannon or the Army onto the streets of the capital, despite a third night of violence.

Speaking on Sky News, she said that police intelligence and the support of local communities would help quell the disturbances.

“The way we police in Britain is not through use of water cannon,” she said. “The way we police in Britain is through consent of communities.”

As those charged with offences appear in court today, “people will start to see the consequences of their actions”, Mrs May added. [JP: Riiiight, sure they will.]

- end of initial entry -

LA writes:

I know this is just a thought, I have no practical plan, but I’m thinking, more than I have before, that non-liberal whites have got to separate themselves from the West, because the West is going down. The liberal whites who lead and control the Western countries—like the “conservative” PM David Cameron, like his Home Secretary Theresa May—are not going to change. They are going to remain in their mad illusions to the bitter end, or at least until it’s too late to turn back. And we don’t have the power to remove these people from power. If we want to live, and not go down in ruins, we must separate ourselves from these people, and form societies that are based on the explicit rejection of liberalism.

James R. writes:

You wrote, aptly:

“The liberal whites who lead and control the Western countries … are going to remain in their mad illusions to the bitter end … And we don’t have the power to remove these people from power. If we want to live, and not go down in ruins, we must separate ourselves from these people, and form societies that are based on the explicit rejection of liberalism.”

I’ve thought of that, but can’t figure out where to go that would actually separate from the icy grip of these people. I’ve dreamed and fantasized—perhaps they’ll allow a peaceful transfer of population, all of “us” around the world go to Australia, say, and all liberals in Australia go elsewhere; or all of us go to Britain, and all liberals depart from the isles to go elsewhere, or some such. But these are mere fantasies, as is the idea of interstellar colonization (we simply leave Earth to them and go … somewhere else).

For me it’s not racial—I’d be happy to have people like Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams come and escape this with us. But I’m guessing it would be “overwhelmingly white” (like the Tea Party’s are inevitably described, and like the flight from the inner cities was described after liberalism had it’s way with them and unleashed their underclass mobs on the populace). But I’m fresh out of actual ideas of actual places to go where they actually would leave us be (this goes also for the idea of succeeding; even if they’d let, say, Texas separate, how different is a Texas under someone like Gov. Perry? Not as different as it sometimes seems from the outside, mate; he’s not the worst, and I’ll take him over most of the available alternatives, but he’s closer to a Cameron than it sometimes seems).

The only thing that remains is, it seems, the small consolation of “saving remnantism,” but that relies upon the faith that once this all goes where it is going, it won’t be overwashed by another civilization, such as, say, Islam, which will then suppress any efforts to reconstruct things.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 09, 2011 02:21 PM | Send