PDA

View Full Version : Environment v Race


MrAngry
12-08-2006, 05:14 PM
10 Worst Places to Live in UK
% white
1 – Hull 97
2 – Nottingham 85
3 – Strabane 95
4 - Hackney, London 60 12% other white
5 – Middlesbrough 99
6 – Mansfield 98
7 - Blaenau Gwent, S Wales ndf
8 - Merthyr Tydfil, S Wales 99
9 - Salford, Gtr Manchester 81
10 - Easington, County Durham 99



10 Best Places to Live in UK
% white
1 - Epsom and Ewell 99
2 - City of Westminster 73
3 – Harrogate 98
4 - Ashford, Kent NDF
5 - Stratford Upon Avon 99
6 - East Hertfordshire 98
7 - South Cambridgeshire 98
8 - Mole Valley 99
9 – Guildford 96
10 - West Oxfordshire 97

The one thing in common the top ten worst have is low income and poor housing, poor educatation, poor health etc. The best top ten the reverse.

This demonstrates that environment and not race determines crime and violence rates. Interestingly Oldham and Burnley didnt make the top ten worst which suprised me.

Ethic minorities are easily distinguishable and therefore easily blamed for the poor circumstances the majority whites find themselves living in. It doesnt help when the ethnic populations are slow to integrate and demand rights based on the traditions and customs of their country of origin, made even worse when the PC brigade grant them these rights to the detriment of the indigenous or asimilated Britons.

Thanks to the property booms enjoyed throughout western europe in the last 20 years and now filtering into the new EU members, populations now need to have two incomes to be able to afford housing, holidays cars, consumer goods etc. This has led to young couples either, putting off having children, leaving it later or just not having children at all. This in turn leads to a decrease in population and more worringly a decrease in the middle to higher classes (for want of a better description), which leads to a decrease in the intellectual capability available.

Coupled with this, traditional industries that required large numbers of emloyees, such as fishing, coal, steel and manufacturing have been in decline. Large numbers of poorly/moderately educated young people have struggled to find employment with enough income to support even a half decent life style that would been posible in latter years. These populations whilst still falling in numbers are proportionally growing in comparison to the rest of the population.

IMO the answer is reinvesting in industries in the western democracies, any immigration should be controled on a need basis, based on skill or worker shortfall. Assimilation and naturalisation should positively encouraged. Prices would increase as a result however, so would wages, and if the trade was concetrated within the West, predominately we would be predominately buying from and supplying to our own nations and workers who would in turn buy the goods or services you and I supply.

Affordable housing should be provided with higher investment in education, larger families should be promoted with tax consessions.

OK all this is simplistic, but it is an attempt at an alternative to either, civil war or enforced repatriation, which would lead to civil war anyway.

Janus
12-08-2006, 05:24 PM
This demonstrates that environment and not race determines crime and violence rates. No, it does not. :rolleyes:

Lily
12-08-2006, 05:28 PM
No, it does not. :rolleyes:
Care to prove otherwise? Or do you need to familiarise yourself with the concept of the 'Burden of Proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof)'? :D

Janus
12-08-2006, 05:30 PM
...do you need to familiarise yourself with the concept of the 'Burden of Proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof)'? :DThe one thing in common the top ten worst have is low income and poor housing, poor educatation, poor health etc. The top ten the reverse.

This demonstrates that environment and not race determines crime and violence rates. This selection of his post is a "non sequitur". ;)

EDIT: I made a spelling error.

Jonathan
12-08-2006, 05:31 PM
Care to prove otherwise?
That looks like you're asking him to disprove his own statement:rofl:

Lily
12-08-2006, 05:33 PM
That looks like you're asking him to disprove his own statement:rofl:
Haha it does...:p He knew what I meant. :D

MrAngry
12-08-2006, 05:34 PM
This selection of his post is a "non sequitir". ;)


Explain why, throwing out a nice elequent phrase means nothing without qualifictaion. The above post in the first instance is fact. The second part is my opinion based on my experiences, oh, and I grew up in Hull btw.

:)

Dr. Gutberlet
12-08-2006, 05:56 PM
Explain why, throwing out a nice elequent phrase means nothing without qualifictaion. The above post in the first instance is fact. The second part is my opinion based on my experiences, oh, and I grew up in Hull btw.

:)
You growing up in a hull. Now this I would believe, libman.

MrAngry
12-08-2006, 05:59 PM
You growing up in a hull. Now this I would believe, libman.


No need to believe, its true.:)

Dr. Gutberlet
12-08-2006, 05:59 PM
No need to believe, its true.:)

I meant the hull of a cargo ship.

MrAngry
12-08-2006, 06:01 PM
I meant the hull of a cargo ship.

very good my man, take a bow........:bbbat: :)

Dr. Gutberlet
12-08-2006, 06:18 PM
very good my man, take a bow........:bbbat: :)

Tony Clifton approves your message

http://www.tonyclifton.net/tonypix/clifton_close_up.jpg

Janus
12-08-2006, 06:44 PM
The above post in the first instance is fact. The second part is my opinion based on my experiences... Reread your post.

MrAngry
12-08-2006, 06:48 PM
Reread your post.

Edited.....................

Janus
12-08-2006, 06:54 PM
Edited...I was referring to the below quoted selection.This demonstrates that... You should also read the definition of "non sequitur".

MrAngry
12-08-2006, 06:57 PM
I was referring to the below quoted selection. You should also read the definition of "non sequitur".


I understand it to mean that it does not follow, and it does follow, most of the areas lists are majority white with economic issues. Simple really...

Janus
12-08-2006, 07:01 PM
...it does follow... No, it does not. :rolleyes:...most of the areas... It is illogical to derive a conclusion from a "biased sample".

MrAngry
12-08-2006, 07:04 PM
No, it does not. :rolleyes: It is illogical to derive a conclusion from a "biased sample".


Biased, where did that come from? It is equally illogical to make a biased statement based on nothing. If you challenge the data, let me know specifically and if you cannot refute it, then I'll prove it further, make it easier for you... :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Arminius
12-08-2006, 07:17 PM
This demonstrates that environment and not race determines crime and violence rates.

So you are saying that poorer (financially) people are more likely to steal and/or get involved in a criminal element? Wow... what ground breaking news!

Like I've stated in another thread before, I doubt it is genetic. It's more to do with the pervading culture among certain minorities; that is the ghetto/gangster culture. It isn't one which emphasizes lawfulness, hard work or education.

MrAngry
12-08-2006, 07:19 PM
So you are saying that poorer (financially) people are more likely to steal and/or get involved in a criminal element? Wow... what ground breaking news!

Like I've stated in another thread before, I doubt it is genetic. It's more to do with the pervading culture among certain minorities; that is the ghetto/gangster culture. It isn't one which emphasizes lawfulness, hard work or education.


Ground breaking news to many in this forum Ritter. This is an American disease that is finding it way over here. And it isnt restricted to minorities IMO.

Arminius
12-08-2006, 07:22 PM
This is an American disease that is finding it way over here. And it isnt restricted to minorities IMO.

Live in a majority black area for years and you notice a clear difference in culture, based mainly on race. Of course there are wiggers/chavs which embrace this culture, though I see a lof of these to be poseurs (from personal experience).

Dr. Gutberlet
12-08-2006, 07:24 PM
Why is it then that the poorest white people in the us are nowehere near as violent as the nigs? I am referring to the poor folk of Appalachia, specifically West Virginia, whom get almost no government assistance compared to the inner city nigs. niggers are violent savages no matter their economic status.

Dr. Gutberlet
12-08-2006, 07:25 PM
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/09/major_findings.php

MrAngry
12-08-2006, 07:28 PM
Live in a majority black area for years and you notice a clear difference in culture, based mainly on race. Of course there are wiggers/chavs which embrace this culture, though I see a lof of these to be poseurs (from personal experience).

I had a spell living in Brixton London back in the early 80's. It was the 1st time I had seen so many balcks in one area, even 2nd generation blacks spoke with a West Indian accent outside of school. Anyway, what I realise now is that the environment they lived in was pretty much the same as in Hull, they way they behaved generally was the same. In Hull we became idealistic socialists, blamed the government and the Tories. I bet it would have been different if we could have blamed the ethnic minorities

Dr. Gutberlet
12-08-2006, 07:31 PM
I love when the bleeding hearts ignore facts. Typical. The most interesting aspect of all of this will be the reactionary backlash against such fools. Every white nation should have a Day of the Rope in its future.

Arminius
12-08-2006, 07:32 PM
Honestly, I don't know if it's completely a racial thing. But I watch local news and every night is it one crime (e.g., robbery, murder) after another, and nearly every time it is a "minority." Of course, I use the word minority in a National sense. Here (Southern US), even I am a minority. Not all blacks are bad, and most that are nice, hard-working people don't embrace this culture I talk about, and in fact do adopt a European-American culture. Even blacks which have a national voice, such as Ken Hamblin (whom I used to listen on the radio), have spoken out about the cultural virus that is prevalent in black homes.

MrAngry
12-08-2006, 07:45 PM
Honestly, I don't know if it's completely a racial thing. But I watch local news and every night is it one crime (e.g., robbery, murder) after another, and nearly every time it is a "minority." Of course, I use the word minority in a National sense. Here (Southern US), even I am a minority. Not all blacks are bad, and most that are nice, hard-working people don't embrace this culture I talk about, and in fact do adopt a European-American culture. Even blacks which have a national voice, such as Ken Hamblin (whom I used to listen on the radio), have spoken out about the cultural virus that is prevalent in black homes.

I agree with what you say, every group, white, black, asian etc, identify themselves behind a banner. The 50's UK the Teddy boys, 60's hippies etc. I dont think ethnic groups help themelves by adopting repugnant cultural behaviour, I also think that governments are obliged to do more to break this paradigm.

The blacks of America can be analagised as being kids let loose in a sweet shop, they perhaps have been allowed to develop a victim mentality, if authorities, national and local should take more action in encouraging integration, instead of trying to understand their issues or pander to them them. (this is a sweeping generalisation I admit).

Sulla the Dictator
12-08-2006, 07:54 PM
Why is it then that the poorest white people in the us are nowehere near as violent as the nigs? I am referring to the poor folk of Appalachia, specifically West Virginia


Thats a good question. Why are rural people, with low population density, who have maybe a neighbor two miles away, victims of less violence than people living in urban areas with MASSIVE population density having both victims and prey living right ontop of them?

Hmmmm......

Dr. Gutberlet
12-08-2006, 08:03 PM
Thats a good question. Why are rural people, with low population density, who have maybe a neighbor two miles away, victims of less violence than people living in urban areas with MASSIVE population density having both victims and prey living right ontop of them?

Hmmmm......

I am going to look up crime statistics for NYC during the early part of the 20th century to see if this pattern holds true with European immigrants living under similar conditions. However, I still believe the savage nature of the nigger to be the mitigating factor.

Hachiko
12-08-2006, 08:04 PM
I think the Doctor is correct over the Dictator on this one.

Thomas777
12-08-2006, 08:05 PM
I am going to look up crime statistics for NYC during the early part of the 20th century to see if this pattern holds true with European immigrants living under similar conditions. However, I still believe the savage nature of the nigger to be the mitigating factor.


Another question would be why did urban violence dramatically increase post-1965 despite the fact that basic amenities (food, housing, etc.) was available to indigent people across the board?

MrAngry
12-08-2006, 08:07 PM
I am going to look up crime statistics for NYC during the early part of the 20th century to see if this pattern holds true with European immigrants living under similar conditions. However, I still believe the savage nature of the nigger to be the mitigating factor.


How can you compare 1900's to today? Data and statistic collection werent as sofisticated as they are today. Needless to say I think you'll find that during the mass immigration of the irish the parralells are there...

Arminius
12-08-2006, 08:11 PM
I agree with what you say, every group, white, black, asian etc, identify themselves behind a banner. The 50's UK the Teddy boys, 60's hippies etc. I dont think ethnic groups help themelves by adopting repugnant cultural behaviour, I also think that governments are obliged to do more to break this paradigm.

The culture, which children learn in the home, is most important. It will shape that person for the rest of his/her life. The part about this gangster culture is it's deemphasizing of education and work - which only works to keep those very people poor. Having had many black teachers (even current ones), I can tell that they were intelligent, hard-working and well-read. These experiences shape my opinion that, although genetic differences may occur, the major difference is largely cultural in nature. Asians in America, for instance, have a strong cultural emphasis on education.

The blacks of America can be analagised as being kids let loose in a sweet shop, they perhaps have been allowed to develop a victim mentality, if authorities, national and local should take more action in encouraging integration, instead of trying to understand their issues or pander to them them. (this is a sweeping generalisation I admit).

Most of my opinions based on blacks are colored by my own experiences. I have a lot of experiences since I began living in this area (Virginia), and compare them with areas which didn't have blacks as the majority. Blacks, who are part of the aforementioned culture, seem to have a chip on their shoulders, a lack of discipline and sense of honor.

MrAngry
12-08-2006, 08:11 PM
All the major wars of the 19th and 20th centuries were predominately white wars, and with each other, could it be argued that whites have predisposition to violence on a larger scale than blacks perhaps.

Dr. Gutberlet
12-08-2006, 08:16 PM
All the major wars of the 19th and 20th centuries were predominately white wars, and with each other, could it be argued that whites have predisposition to violence on a larger scale than blacks perhaps.


LOL, a group needs to possess a certain degree of intelligence in order to strive for world conquest. Africans, like 7UP, never had it never will.

Hachiko
12-08-2006, 08:18 PM
Needless to say I think you'll find that during the mass immigration of the irish the parralells are there...
Biased against the Irish are we?

Hachiko
12-08-2006, 08:18 PM
All the major wars of the 19th and 20th centuries were predominately white wars, and with each other, could it be argued that whites have predisposition to violence on a larger scale than blacks perhaps.
Yes, but we do it with organization and spiffy uniforms.

MrAngry
12-08-2006, 08:19 PM
LOL, a group needs to possess a certain degree of intelligence in order to strive for world conquest. Africans, like Coke, never had it never will.

Does that mean black are striving for dominance? Of course not..... And how much intelligence does it take to send your countrymen off to die and to kill miilions in the process? War and intelligence are not interlinked, war is usually linked to greed, power or stupidity. Iraq a case in point.

MrAngry
12-08-2006, 08:20 PM
Yes, but we do it with organization and spiffy uniforms.


I wore a nice blue one for some years, even wowed the American girlies in 1985, 3 months in the US fandabidosie!

Thomas777
12-08-2006, 08:21 PM
How can you compare 1900's to today? Data and statistic collection werent as sofisticated as they are today. Needless to say I think you'll find that during the mass immigration of the irish the parralells are there...

In the 1900s, an Irish immigrant lived in Third World conditions and ran the risk of starving to death in the street. In 2006, an indigent (yet healthy and able bodied) Black person in America will be allocated publicly subsidized food, housing, clothing, and medical care. Where is the parralell?

Helios Panoptes
12-08-2006, 08:21 PM
MrAngry, you've blown a gasket. You are not making any sense.

Hachiko
12-08-2006, 08:21 PM
Does that mean black are striving for dominance?
Within their own enclaves, usually yes.

MrAngry
12-08-2006, 08:21 PM
Biased against the Irish are we?


No lol, maybe Masty, but being Irish is only coincidental....

MrAngry
12-08-2006, 08:22 PM
MrAngry, you've blown a gasket. You are not making any sense.


Care to elaborate?

Winston
12-08-2006, 08:26 PM
All the major wars of the 19th and 20th centuries were predominately white wars, and with each other, could it be argued that whites have predisposition to violence on a larger scale than blacks perhaps.

Not at all. All races are capable of violence, but the huge body counts that resulted from the big wars of the twentieth century are down to the technical ability of the people involved. There are constant wars taking place in third world countries which I'm sure you can imagine would soon spiral into complete devastation if more advanced weapons were available.

Helios Panoptes
12-08-2006, 08:27 PM
Care to elaborate?

Okay.

Does that mean black are striving for dominance? Of course not.....

Are you completely unfamiliar with the warfare that is taking place on the African continent at this time?

And how much intelligence does it take to send your countrymen off to die and to kill miilions in the process?

It takes some degree of solidarity, organization, and technological capability to engage in "large scale" warfare.

War and intelligence are not interlinked, war is usually linked to greed, power or stupidity. Iraq a case in point.

What he meant was that technology is needed for "large scale" war. It would be extremely difficult or impossible for African states to wage war across the globe regardless of whether or not they'd like to. That I am not an intergalactic dictator may not be evidence of my peaceful nature. Rather, it may be because I lack the means to become one.

MrAngry
12-08-2006, 08:29 PM
Not at all. All races are capable of violence, but the huge body counts that resulted from the big wars of the twentieth century are down to the technical ability of the people involved. There are constant wars taking place in third world countries which I'm sure you can imagine would soon spiral into complete devastation if more advanced weapons were available.


Thanks for helping me make my point. You point re: 3rd world countries is demonstrated in the Iran, Iraq war. The point I was trying to make, was that blacks are no more or less predisposed to violence to anyone else.

il ragno
12-08-2006, 08:30 PM
OK all this is simplistic, but it is an attempt at an alternative to either, civil war or enforced repatriation, which would lead to civil war anyway.

This isn't an "alternative" except to possessing even a modicum of courage or common sense.

"Civil war or enforced repatriation, which would lead to civil war anyway" is an admission that the presence of sullen stupid alien wogs is the straw threatening to break the camel's back - which otherwise would bear up under ordinary stresses or even national crisis.

Mr Angry's "alternative" is for heaven's sake, don't get them mad - they might kill us! Which, shockingly, is an "alternative" way too many whites subscribe to in their craven heart of hearts.

Because the problem is this: nobody wants them around, but even more than that , nobody wants to appear 'racist' - the ultimate in infradig. And that can only pan out one way: with white Britons slowly but surely abandoning Britain.

The stakes of opening Pandora's Box O' Diversity keep mounting higher. Here in the States, white flight is a common phenomenon, but the fleeing whites are still residing in America. Now we may well get to see white flight played out among once-white nations.

Dr. Gutberlet
12-08-2006, 08:35 PM
It's pretty sad that nigs get all the government subsidies possible while poor whites have to rely on Larry Jones to beg for food and clothing for them. "poor" nigs=dressed in fubu, ecko, timberland, nike while growing fat on fast/junk food.

MrAngry
12-08-2006, 08:36 PM
This isn't an "alternative" except to possessing even a modicum of courage or common sense.

"Civil war or enforced repatriation, which would lead to civil war anyway" is an admission that the presence of sullen stupid alien wogs is the straw threatening to break the camel's back - which otherwise would bear up under ordinary stresses or even national crisis.

Mr Angry's "alternative" is for heaven's sake, don't get them mad - they might kill us! Which, shockingly, is an "alternative" way too many whites subscribe to in their craven heart of hearts.

Because the problem is this: nobody wants them around, but even more than that , nobody wants to appear 'racist' - the ultimate in infradig. And that can only pan out one way: with white Britons slowly but surely abandoning Britain.

The stakes of opening Pandora's Box O' Diversity keep mounting higher. Here in the States, white flight is a common phenomenon, but the fleeing whites are still residing in America. Now we may well get to see white flight played out among once-white nations.


White flight or poverty flight? I read an interesting post somewhere, Sulla I think. I may look for it later.
I dont care if they get mad, they should be integrated and assimilated, I dont want to pussy foot around minorities, that has led to right wingers having ome tenuous justification for their views.
I prefer to call it nationalism, regardless of ethnicity.

Sulla the Dictator
12-08-2006, 09:15 PM
I am going to look up crime statistics for NYC during the early part of the 20th century to see if this pattern holds true with European immigrants living under similar conditions.

No need, I've examined that and relative to the population, it was pretty bad. Black, hispanic, and Asian gangs replaced Irish, Italian, German, and Jewish gangs.

Sulla the Dictator
12-08-2006, 09:18 PM
Not at all. All races are capable of violence, but the huge body counts that resulted from the big wars of the twentieth century are down to the technical ability of the people involved.


True but misleading. The technical ability of the peoples involved allowed the hatred, violence, and malice to be expressed in the most extensive way possible.

Weapons systems are not an excuse.

Sulla the Dictator
12-08-2006, 09:20 PM
In the 1900s, an Irish immigrant lived in Third World conditions and ran the risk of starving to death in the street.


In the 1900s, your racialist counterparts called the Irish the 'niggers of Europe' and suggested that they were racially inferior to 'white men'. And, surprise surprise, as the Irish merged with an urban population in New York and suffered under the effects of urban poverty, the crime rate among Irish male youth skyrocketed.

Mentious
12-08-2006, 09:22 PM
If your ancestors, for decades, lived in wholesome, positive, and orderly environments those environments exist in you; they resonate in you. You'll re-create them.

Environmental experience, as deposited in the genes and deeper, is a heritage, a form of inner wealth that keeps re-emerging.

It is no small thing to have spent aeons of time in northern climes, done the work, and learned the lessons.

"I sing for my thousand Mothers White,
Of a million northern nights"

Thomas777
12-08-2006, 09:23 PM
In the 1900s, your racialist counterparts called the Irish the 'niggers of Europe' and suggested that they were racially inferior to 'white men'. And, surprise surprise, as the Irish merged with an urban population in New York and suffered under the effects of urban poverty, the crime rate among Irish male youth skyrocketed.

In the 1900s, Irishmen seeking gainful employment were challenged to pitched battles in the streets by Anglos and Germans. They also squatted in filthy tenements and starvation was a very real possibility if they did not resort to violent crime. I don't think this is analagous to the circumstances of an able-bodied Black kid who has plenty of food at his disposal, a subsidized home to live in, a cellular phone to use, and $150 sneakers on his feet.

Thomas777
12-08-2006, 09:25 PM
In the 1900s, your racialist counterparts called the Irish the 'niggers of Europe' and suggested that they were racially inferior to 'white men'.

This disposition really wasn't "racialist". The Ulster Scots and the English hated the ethnic Irish and vice versa, yes, but nobody ever suggested that the Irish should be segregated from Whites or that they represented a profoundly different order of humanity altogether.

Sulla the Dictator
12-08-2006, 09:27 PM
If your anscestors, for decades, lived in wholesome, positive, and orderly environments those environments exist in you; they resonate in you. You'll re-create them.


Environment is maleable. "Decades" are meaningless in terms of what you are made of.


Environmental experience, as deposited in the genes and deeper, is a heritage, a form of inner wealth that keeps re-emerging.


Maybe so, but decades, and I would say even CENTURIES, are meaningless. Society does not follow any planned genetics program.


It is no small thing to have spent aeons of time in northern climes, done the work, and learned the lessons.


Since what society values has changed so many times, it is farsical to believe that it has BRED for racial differences in the competitive way you folks describe.

MrAngry
12-08-2006, 09:27 PM
In the 1900s, Irishmen seeking gainful employment were challenged to pitched battles in the streets by Anglos and Germans. They also squatted in filthy tenements and starvation was a very real possibility if they did not resort to violent crime. I don't think this is analagous to the circumstances of an able-bodied Black kid who has plenty of food at his disposal, a subsidized home to live in, a cellular phone to use, and $150 sneakers on his feet.


The comparison to the 1900's wasnt made by sulla, I believe it was Dr.Gutberlet, in any event you have proved Sullas point that the comparison is in essence flawed.

Sulla the Dictator
12-08-2006, 09:30 PM
In the 1900s, Irishmen seeking gainful employment were challenged to pitched battles in the streets by Anglos and Germans. They also squatted in filthy tenements and starvation was a very real possibility if they did not resort to violent crime.


You are forgetting the other things they competed for. Liquor sales, bootlegging, prostitution, and theft from the docks as well as protection money for local business and shopkeepers.

You're romanticising crime.


I don't think this is analagous to the circumstances of an able-bodied Black kid who has plenty of food at his disposal, a subsidized home to live in, a cellular phone to use, and $150 sneakers on his feet.

Now you're exaggerating the circumstances surrounding black crime.

Thomas777
12-08-2006, 09:30 PM
Since what society values has changed so many times, it is farsical to believe that it has BRED for racial differences in the competitive way you folks describe.

What society "values" is irrelevant. General intelligence is the greatest predictor of success in individuals and it varies across populations. Its foolish to suggest that environments overtime do not select for certain traits over others within insular populations overtime.

Sulla the Dictator
12-08-2006, 09:32 PM
The comparison to the 1900's wasnt made by sulla, I believe it was Dr.Gutberlet, in any event you have proved Sullas point that the comparison is in essence flawed.

Dr. Gutberlet suggested that there was little or no crime. He was in error. There was a great deal.

However, since these fellows were white, the racialists not only approve of, but ADMIRE their criminality. :p

MrAngry
12-08-2006, 09:38 PM
Dr. Gutberlet suggested that there was little or no crime. He was in error. There was a great deal.

However, since these fellows were white, the racialists not only approve of, but ADMIRE their criminality. :p

One for my racist hypocrisy thread......... THANKS

Mentious
12-08-2006, 09:43 PM
Environment is maleable. "Decades" are meaningless in terms of what you are made of.
Maybe so, but decades, and I would say even CENTURIES, are meaningless. Society does not follow any planned genetics program.
Since what society values has changed so many times, it is farsical to believe that it has BRED for racial differences in the competitive way you folks describe.
Ha! I think your gears got to spinning really fast with that one, Sulla.

Environment resides in the genes; and in one's samskaras/vasanas (inner markings/conditioning of the soul), deeper than genes.

Orderly, beautiful Europe is in me, and in my children.

http://celibacy.info/WhiteTownsOrderlyHomes.jpg

Thomas777
12-08-2006, 09:51 PM
You are forgetting the other things they competed for. Liquor sales, bootlegging, prostitution, and theft from the docks as well as protection money for local business and shopkeepers.
This did not begin to occur until the Irish consolidated their position within the municipal apparatus. Additionally, what you are referring to here is organized crime and corruption of city government. This is a qualitatively different phenomenon than random street violence.

You're romanticising crime.
No. I am addressing the relationship between poverty and crime. It stands to reason that people who cannot access resources with which to survive through gainful employment will resort to violent means to appropriate such resources. In America, the welfare state subsidizes the basic necessities of indigent people. Hence, it cannot be said that American Blacks must commit crimes to survive.




Now you're exaggerating the circumstances surrounding black crime.

Go hang around whatever Nevada's equivalent is of circuit court. Tell me what you notice about how the "indigent" people there are dressed. Pay particular attention to their incessant chatting on their brand new cell phones.

Winston
12-08-2006, 11:25 PM
One for my racist hypocrisy thread......... THANKS

That'll just make your thread even weaker than it was, because sulla's idea that some of us admire white crime is an often repeated fallacy of his.

Thomas has done more than enough to show the idiocy of trying to compare the struggles of white immigrants of a century ago to the blacks and immigrants of today. Poor understanding is endemic among anti-racists.

Burrhus
12-08-2006, 11:32 PM
What society "values" is irrelevant. General intelligence is the greatest predictor of success in individuals and it varies across populations. Its foolish to suggest that environments overtime do not select for certain traits over others within insular populations overtime.

Thomas is correct.

Mentious
12-08-2006, 11:34 PM
People create environment.
Environment does not create people.

Burrhus
12-08-2006, 11:39 PM
People create environment.

So prior to there being people on the earth, there was no environment?

Janus
12-09-2006, 12:17 AM
It is... illogical to make a biased statement based on nothing. You presented the names and ethnic make-ups of twenty cities in a country whose population is mostly "white". You conclusion does not follow from the evidence you presented. Do you have a source for any of those figures?

The average ethnic make-ups of both samples does not even support your assertion. :rolleyes:Ten Worst Places To Live:

Average "White" Population: 91.667%Ten Best Places To Live:

Average "White" Population: 95.223%

Mentious
12-09-2006, 12:39 AM
So prior to there being people on the earth, there was no environment?
I didn't know we were discussing wilderness environments. I think we are talking about the environments that humans make for themselves. Here's a human environment for purposes of this discussion:
http://celibacy.info/images/WhiteTownTallinnEstonia.jpg

Tallinn, Estonia

Here's another environment:

http://celibacy.info/WhiteArchesFlowers.jpg

Yes, I'm saying people create their living environments, not the other way around.

As to whether there was an environment before people, that's a metaphysical question beyond this thread. But yes, consciousness comes first, then phenomena (as in the dream state). My view is that the natural (wild) environment is indeed an emanation of the human consciousness. It did not give birth to us except in our constantly shifting theories and "scenarios" about our origins. Consciousness creates environment (including wilderness). The wilderness does not create consciousness.

Sulla the Dictator
12-09-2006, 12:47 AM
Environment resides in the genes; and in one's samskaras/vasanas (inner markings/conditioning of the soul), deeper than genes.


I don't know what this means. It certainly sounds untrue. You are not 'genetically' a good parent. You are not genetically a good person.



Orderly, beautiful Europe is in me, and in my children.


"Orderly Europe" is about sixty years old. Are you suggesting that YOUR FATHER had a genetic shift at about the same time as geopolitics altered the character of Europe?

Mentious
12-09-2006, 12:56 AM
"Orderly Europe" is about sixty years old.
The town of Tallin, Estonia (below) is one of hundreds of beautiful, orderly European towns, and hundreds of years old. And their culture was orderly and wholesome, too. You think it was full of gangbangers, crime and rot? What you say is bunk.

http://celibacy.info/images/WhiteTownTallinnEstonia.jpg

"Disorderly Europe" is only 60 years old.
Julian Lee: Environment resides in the genes; and in one's samskaras/vasanas (inner markings/conditioning of the soul), deeper than genes.
Sulla the Dictator: I don't know what this means.
It means that a people will externalize their inner ideals, according to past conditioning. The past conditioning resides in "genes" to some extent (resonances from ancestors), and more deeply, in astral 'mind marks' Hindus call "samskaras" and Buddhists call "vasanas." it means past life markings, or conditioning. People create environments based on their experiences and ideals of the past, and they are attracted into groups (at birth) through existing affinities.
It certainly sounds untrue.
The idea that "All that we are comes from without, not from within," sounds untrue to me.
You are not 'genetically' a good parent. You are not genetically a good person.
Don't be so sure. If you entertain something deeper than "genes" -- the subtler conditioning/samskaras -- it is likely that we are good parents because of past conditioning. In the same way, people who create beautiful environments do so because of past conditioning. That's why I say, "The environment is in us." Whites create the environments that they do because they are Whites, going back aeons.

Sulla the Dictator
12-09-2006, 01:02 AM
The town of Tallin, Estonia (pictured above) is one of hundreds of beautiful, orderly European towns, and hundreds of years old. And their culture was orderly and wholesome, too. You think it was full of gangbangers, crime and rot? What you say is bunk.


I can guarantee you, Julian, it didn't look like a theme park 100 years ago. :rofl:

And yeah, I'm pretty sure every European town had crime and bravos. And brigands. And murderers and rapists.

Europe was not EuroDisney before the Second World War.

Mentious
12-09-2006, 01:12 AM
It only looks like a "theme park" to you because theme parks are always trying to imitate the beautiful architecture and good design of old Europe, and the good feelings that come from it.

The town in that photo (Tallin, Estonia) is unchanged for 100's of years. And it was/is a beautiful environment because it was created by White people, who have instincts for both order and beauty.

The town comes from the people; the people don't come from the town. Here's another environment that came from a people:

Hallstat, Austria
http://celibacy.info/WhiteArchiHallstatAustriaCropped.jpg

And yeah, I'm pretty sure every European town had crime and bravos. And brigands. And murderers and rapists.
World history is not just one big Las Vegas Strip.

Dr. Gutberlet
12-09-2006, 01:26 AM
Behold, the wondrous villages of the african world:

http://people.senecac.on.ca/patricia.clark/village%20huts%20Niger.jpg

Even "Dr." Leonard Jeffries, the pos black racist he is, knows that Mali and Songhai are pure propaganda.

Mentious
12-09-2006, 01:39 AM
More White Environments

http://celibacy.info/WhiteArchitectureGlennHarringtonCropped.jpg

http://celibacy.info/WhiteCultureArt.jpg

And for a truly ideal environment, don't forget beautiful music (preferrably absent digital subwoofer and bestial shouting):

http://celibacy.info/WhiteCultureScottMusicians.jpg

Sulla the Dictator
12-09-2006, 03:11 AM
It only looks like a "theme park" to you because theme parks are always trying to imitate the beautiful architecture and good design of old Europe.


No, it looks like a theme park because people aren't present. Because its from a distance that doesn't show the dirt and grime.


The town in that photo (Tallin, Estonia) is unchanged for 100's of years. And it was/is a beautiful environment because it was created by White people, who have instincts for both order and beauty.


Estonia is not Europe. It would be like saying Maine is representative of the United States. It is not, and in fact, has never been.


Speaking of "theme parks," why do theme parks always mimic European towns and achitecture?


They don't, actually. They mimic small heartland American towns. Atleast the one's I've been to. And they do so because, atleast in the case of Disneyland, that was the patron they had in mind when they built the place.


Precisely because of their beauty, and the positive feelings that come from that.


Everyone knows who Jack the Ripper is. But are you aware, Julian, of the area Jack the Ripper killed his victims?

Any guesses why he killed people there? :p


The town comes from the people; the people don't come from the town. Here's another environment that came from a people


So then the Subura, the Watts of Ancient Rome, was filled with murderers, thieves, rapists, prostitutes and proles because that was the nature of the people?


World history is not just one big Las Vegas Strip.

Thats true, the Las Vegas Strip is a lot safer and quieter than most historical urban areas. Its heavily patrolled by police.

Sulla the Dictator
12-09-2006, 03:12 AM
More White Environments

http://celibacy.info/WhiteArchitectureGlennHarringtonCropped.jpg

http://celibacy.info/WhiteCultureArt.jpg

And for a truly ideal environment, don't forget beautiful music (preferrably absent digital subwoofer and bestial shouting):

http://celibacy.info/WhiteCultureScottMusicians.jpg


(Cough)

I wonder why.....PAINTINGS.....might portray an ideal environment. :p

Mentious
12-09-2006, 04:11 AM
Now you're clutching at straws, Sulla. There are plenty of photographs available. I've already provided a few of the nearly limitless photos of beautiful White environments, past and present. I thought these particular paintings conveyed the spirit of beauty in White design very well. (I'd have rather had the actual photos.)
Thats true, the Las Vegas Strip is a lot safer and quieter than most historical urban areas.
You're quite a 'card,' Sulla.

A Street in Amsterdam
http://celibacy.info/WhiteStreetInAmsterdam.jpg

Sulla the Dictator
12-09-2006, 05:47 AM
Now you're clutching at straws, Sulla.


Not quite. It was a pretty clever point. :D


There are plenty of photographs available.


Why yes there are! Remember that I said:


"Orderly Europe" is about sixty years old.

Many of these pictures were taken for us by the kindly bureau of TOURISM, by the by, and we can think of that what we will.


I've already provided a few of nearly limitless photos of beautiful White environments, past and present. I thought these particular paintings conveyed the spirit of beauty in White design very well. (I'd have rather had the actual photos.)


Even YOU must believe, with your idyllic view of the past, that paintings do not portray the reality of the past. There is no smell. There is no waste filled streets. There is no corpse in the alley dead the night before from hunger or exposure. There is no wagon carrying the bodies of people dead from cholera. There is no landlord evicting a family of seven into the gutter. There is no law enforcement official dragging the poor peasant to the debtor's prison.

There are no piss stained pants on hard working men whose only release is a night of hard drinking and whoring. There's no dimwitted boy who only got that way by being clubbed in the head by a baker when he tried to steal a piece of bread. There are no dead eyed whores sold into prostitution by vile fathers, or dragged into it on their 16th birthday by pimps from the orphanage.

There are no murderers shown lurking in alleys, ready to cut the throat of a country boy to sell his body to doctors. There are no opium dens in your precious paintings. No slave markets, no dirty stinking mines. No gallows. No surgical quarters. Your paintings don't show the boson flaying the back from a seaman for a minor infraction. They don't show the filthy pederasty and occassional homosexual rape going on beneath decks of those fine wooden sailing ships. They don't show convicts forced into jobs as 'colonists'. They don't show the famines in the bad harvests. They don't show the poverty even in the good ones.

Your paintings don't show a lot of things I don't even have the time to mention, let alone the things I did.

So no, the world you imagine never existed.

MrAngry
12-09-2006, 11:47 AM
That'll just make your thread even weaker than it was, because sulla's idea that some of us admire white crime is an often repeated fallacy of his.

Thomas has done more than enough to show the idiocy of trying to compare the struggles of white immigrants of a century ago to the blacks and immigrants of today. Poor understanding is endemic among anti-racists.


That works both ways, I have lost count of the racialist and racists making this comparison. The only occaisions that I raise this topic is in response to another post. In this thread it was Dr.Gutberlet...

Geist
12-09-2006, 12:01 PM
Even YOU must believe, with your idyllic view of the past, that paintings do not portray the reality of the past. There is no smell. There is no waste filled streets. There is no corpse in the alley dead the night before from hunger or exposure. There is no wagon carrying the bodies of people dead from cholera. There is no landlord evicting a family of seven into the gutter. There is no law enforcement official dragging the poor peasant to the debtor's prison.

There are no piss stained pants on hard working men whose only release is a night of hard drinking and whoring. There's no dimwitted boy who only got that way by being clubbed in the head by a baker when he tried to steal a piece of bread. There are no dead eyed whores sold into prostitution by vile fathers, or dragged into it on their 16th birthday by pimps from the orphanage.

There are no murderers shown lurking in alleys, ready to cut the throat of a country boy to sell his body to doctors. There are no opium dens in your precious paintings. No slave markets, no dirty stinking mines. No gallows. No surgical quarters. Your paintings don't show the boson flaying the back from a seaman for a minor infraction. They don't show the filthy pederasty and occassional homosexual rape going on beneath decks of those fine wooden sailing ships. They don't show convicts forced into jobs as 'colonists'. They don't show the famines in the bad harvests. They don't show the poverty even in the good ones.

Your paintings don't show a lot of things I don't even have the time to mention, let alone the things I did.

So no, the world you imagine never existed.

That is the post I have always wanted to make.

Winston
12-09-2006, 05:18 PM
Those paintings depicted scenes that could be photographed without losing anything, which I imagine is why they were chosen. I don't think anybody believes that life was a fairy tale in olde times, but the beauty of the environments created by white people is what the guy was driving at. Africans could never create things like this.

Sulla the Dictator
12-10-2006, 05:46 AM
Those paintings depicted scenes that could be photographed without losing anything, which I imagine is why they were chosen.


They don't SHOW the reality. Thats the problem with them. Its not real. Its a snapshot of a small segment of the world you people are talking about.


I don't think anybody believes that life was a fairy tale in olde times


Forget 'fairy tale'. It isn't pleasant. Life was not pleasant. People suffered on a daily basis as a matter of course.


but the beauty of the environments created by white people is what the guy was driving at.


Again, the 'environments' were not beautiful. The walls were covered in grime from factories. The streets were filled with the excrement of humans and animals. It wouldn't be unusual to come across a corpse in many sections of these cities. Most of the people were poor, hungry, and often desperate. Even if the underclass didn't harm you, they wouldn't think twice about conning you or cheating you.


Africans could never create things like this.

:rolleyes:

Your dislike for blacks is a big part of your identity.

Nyx
12-10-2006, 06:04 AM
Race and environment are mutually causative. Different races build difference niches for themselves reflective of their underlying genotype. In evolutionary biology this is called 'niche building' - cultural/envirinomental shaping in a direction canalised by a people's underlying genotype. Something of this nature is observable not only amongst species, but amongst human individuals and races. And while it is obviously true that the environment has a major impact on people, different people will respond to the moulding circumstances differently because of innate differences. A gifted child will be more receptive to an enriching environment than a hereditary moron. And the hereditary moron, left to his own devices, will shape a different environment for himself than the gifted individual. This is true just as much of individuals as it is of entire races.

Mentious
12-10-2006, 06:16 AM
What Fulminating Fiction you fried up for us, Sulla. I'll just take your final pontification:
So no, the world you imagine never existed.
It's funny hearing simplistic pronouncements on all former cultures and time periods from a vast past, from a guy who lives in a plastic modern Twilight Zone like Las Vegas. You concoct your notions of "history" primarily from your predilection to create negative collages. You should try writing gothic novels instead of shrink-heated, burnt plastic history vignettes.

Now, what is it that "never existed," anyway? French gardens? Pedestrian bridges? Spires? A caveat to the reader: I never have attempted to summarize "past life in all places and periods," and wouldn't try such an absurdity. I'll leave it to Sulla to reduce all of human history down a little black dot. But there is no question that life changes and that all periods and places are not the same. That's easy to see just in one contemporary lifetime. I experienced a different world that existed as recently as 1961.

A World That Once Existed

Even that short a span back, human life was very different from now in my town. In 1961, in the midwest, neighborhoods were completely different, people in them were different, the atmosphere walking down a sidewalk was utterly different from today. There was a lot of safety and humanity on the sidewalks, and White mothers were at home with their kids, sometimes with granny, too. The aroma of cooked potatoes and onions wafted into every street around six. There was a different order of men walking around in those days. Even college students were kindly, yet manly, acting like friendly big brothers. Mostly men, I remember, with brotherly smiles on their faces when they saw a little tyke. (This was Des Moines, and we lived near Drake University.) That's for starters. I remember order and security, dad getting off the bus, everybody's mom at home, kids just like me front and back, and grannies who made lemonade and carmel corn across the street for whoever might happen by. There were far fewer cars on the streets, which made a huge difference in the cultural environment compared to now. (One of the mistakes of Whites.) On many little-traveled streets it was common for kids to play in them without much sense of danger. There were Mom and Pop groceries on almost every other corner, with interesting characters inside. People moved to California on an adventure trip down a two-lane called Route 66. I especially remember the feeling of Sundays in the late '50's, early '60s. There was a palpably different vibe to Sundays then, all over town.

No more. You can't walk in that neighborhood now and see anybody, and you're likely to be threatened by black thugs. Forget about mothers at home. Forget about kids running about. Human life changed quite a lot in just 40 years, in just my town.

And you're saying history never brings changes to human life in any time or clime? That's just mentally obtuse, Sulla.

The only fallacy is your notion of a monotonous uniform history. It's very Twilight Zone. Maybe it jibes best with your experience of a crassly uniform, monotonous Las Vegas world. But World history is far more textured and various than the Las Vegas strip, which does not represent the pinnacle of human culture, or even culture at all in any human sense. You are measuring history by your own heights and your own lights.

Back to my original point in this thread on "Evironment vs. Race":

If your Las Vegas soul cringes at colorful medieval spires and people filling cobbled pedestrian streets, still the modern living arrangements create by Whites are usually superior to those created by some races left on their own. Go to Pearl Street Mall in Boulder, Colorado. That's something modern for you. Civilized, pretty, safe and created by White people. There are many flower beds loaded with colorful tulips, and children playing in well-designed play areas and sand pits, with their mothers sitting nearby. It's a very White place. Even the urban environment you seem fond of, which I consider to be the worst of the White civic patterns, is the creation of White people. Again, environment comes from racial differences, not the other way around.

I only choose to focus on the older European environments because they are in fact more human scaled and aesthetically pleasing. I personally prefer traditional neighborhood design, and the human scale of the old European village, which some of the better architects actually try to copy today. As to "dirty" meanstreets: My people the Norwegians, as a race through most of their history, were never wont to live in the dirty meanstreets that haunt your mind, Sulla.

klipgeit
12-10-2006, 06:57 AM
Within their own enclaves, usually yes.


Johannesburg is a famous example.

Sulla the Dictator
12-10-2006, 08:36 AM
What Fulminating Fiction you fried up for us, Sulla. I'll just take your final pontification:


What fiction? Thats the world as it was. Peasant rebellions and mutinies and workers strikes and revolutions didn't happen out of whimsy, Julian.


It's funny hearing simplistic pronouncements on all worlds; all cultures; of the vast past from a guy who lives in a plastic modern Twilight Zone like Las Vegas.


(Shrug) It helps that I'm familiar with the details of the periods in question. I don't recommend that just anyone try it.

I live in Las Vegas, yes. I don't see what that has to do with anything. There's an entire valley of city beyond the Strip.


You concoct your notions of "history" primarily from your predilection to create negative collages. You should try writing gothic novels instead of shrink-heated, burnt plastic history vignettes.


I notice that you imply what I said was fiction, but you aren't willing to actually say so. I suspect thats because you know my description is accurate.

I can understand your thinking. You feel that, OVERALL, your ideology has merit and its important that people believe in it. You feel that there are impressionable people reading your posts, and that if it takes this FICTION of a Historical Utopia to achieve the "postiive" end of convincing them, then it is worth the "minor" deception.

On the other hand, were you to actually challenge anything I said, and I were to respond with the evidence that we both know exists, it would weaken the case. Thus with innuendo you suggest that I'm somehow maligning something magical. That way everyone reads what they want to read.

But as a history buff, I think the record is important. So, for the record Julian, what was inaccurate about my post?


"Never existed." How pompous! First a caveat to the reader: I never have attempted to describe any "one world," or "one nation" or one period of time, anywhere.


Hey, you posted those paintings. I'm operating off of the periods contained within, and explaining why they are worthless in discussing the pros or cons of a certain time.


It's Sulla who appears to want to reduce all of human history down to one little black dot.


I enjoy history in SPITE of the flaws of historical periods.


I experienced a different world that truly existed even as recently as [I]1961. Even that short a span back, human life was very different from now in my town. In 1961, in the midwest, neighborhoods were completely different, people in them were different, the feeling walking down a sidewalk was completely different than now.


Julian, do you understand the problems with comparing the Midwest in the past to massive urban centers of the present? What if I were to tell you that the Midwest was safer in 1861 than it was in 1961? :p

Would you suggest that the PEOPLE of the Midwest had grown 'worse', and thus caused their environment to suffer?

Or does modernity come with some costs? Maybe the growth of population in 100 years has something to do with the decline in things like safety. Even in the Heartland.


There was a lot of safety on the streets, and White mothers were at home, with the aroma of cooked potatoes and dinner wafting everywhere in my neighborhood.


Thirty years before that there were running gun battles in the streets of Chicago.


There was a different order of men walking around in those days. Even college kids were kindly, yet manly, acting like friendly big brothers to little guys like me.


I don't understand why you seek to apply your antecdotal experiences in Smallville to the world at large.


Mostly men, I remember them about with wholesome smiles on their faces.


There were some ugly truths underneath the surface of Beaver Cleever's world. Most people believe that with the strict social stigma attached to all 'abnormal' things, spousal and child abuse largely went unreported. So did child molestation. So did rape.


(We lived near a University.) That's for starters. I remember order and security, dad getting off the bus, everybody's mom at home, kids just like me front and back, and grannies who made lemonade and carmel corn across the street for all the neighborhood kids.


Security is largely due to perception. Before a 24 hour news cycle and a mass media eager to spread any news it can get its hands on, stories of crime and abduction simply didn't get to as many people. Not that it was easy to report it, as it often just slipped through the cracks.

About the time you're talking about White Men who were masculine, full of jokes, and with big grins were filling up holes in the deserts outside of Vegas with human remains. They used to dump them on the way to Lake Mead, or if they didn't have a lot of time, they would empty out a sofa and put them in it in the desert with the pillows on top.


There also were far fewer cars on the streets, which made a huge difference in the cultural environment compared to now. (One of the mistakes of Whites.)

There were Mom and Pop groceries on almost every other corner, with interesting people inside. People moved to California on an adventure trip down Route 66. I especially remember the feeling of Sundays in the late '50's, early '60s. There was a palpably different vibe to Sundays then, all over town.


You happened to live in a particularly rare time in human history, with the economic boom following our succesful defeat of the Nazis, you've allowed this to color your image of ALL periods of history.

And you're wrong. You lived in a better time than most. But the fact is that you didn't live in a 'typical' or common example of the way life was in history. And no, Julian, not even "white" history.


No more. You can't walk in that neighborhood now and see anybody, and you're likely to be threatened by black thugs. Human life changed quite a lot in just 40 years, in just my town.


Hey, you couldn't walk in some neighborhoods in Chicago without being threatened by Italian thugs 40 years before the time you were waxing on about.

So be thankful you spent your childhood in a period in between.


And you're saying history never brings changes to human life in any time or clime? That's just mentally obtuse, Sulla.


I'm saying that history goes back and forth like a pendullum, not up or down. And it always will. Things were worse before you were born. You may FEEL things are worse now, but I'd be hard pressed to agree with you. Not everyone lived in whatever University town you grew up in.

Morpheus
12-11-2006, 01:18 PM
Why is it then that the poorest white people in the us are nowehere near as violent as the nigs? I am referring to the poor folk of Appalachia, specifically West Virginia, whom get almost no government assistance compared to the inner city nigs. niggers are violent savages no matter their economic status.

Since it has already been proven that people of the same race can live very different lifestyles according to socio-economic status and it has been pointed out to you that people living in rural areas vs. urban areas (modern Urban areas) then the only thing left is to do, in order to disprove the claim that crime rates are biological is to show that people of the same geographic ancestry from the group you disparage also live different lifestyles, not only according to socio-economic status but also culture.

You and other racists claim that Blacks are the same whever they live but this is simply not true. Blacks with higher socio-economic status live in areas with far less crime.

There are countries in Africa such as Ghana where Blacks make up nearly 100% of the population and the crime rates are low compared to other countries:



INCIDENCE OF CRIME

The crime rate in Ghana is very low compared to industrialized countries. An analysis was done using INTERPOL data for Ghana. For purpose of comparison, data were drawn for the seven offenses used to compute the United States FBI's index of crime. Index offenses include murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft. The combined total of these offenses constitutes the Index used for trend calculation purposes. Ghana will be compared with Japan (country with a low crime rate) and USA (country with a high crime rate). According to the INTERPOL data, for murder, the rate per 100,000 population in 2000 was 2.48 for Ghana, 1.10 for Japan, and 5.51 for USA. For rape, the rate in 2000 was 6.85 for Ghana, compared with 1.78 for Japan and 32.05 for USA. For robbery, the rate in 2000 was 2.15 for Ghana, 4.08 for Japan, and 144.92 for USA. For aggravated assault, the rate in 2000 was 448.42 for Ghana, 23.78 for Japan, and 323.62 for USA. For burglary, the rate in 2000 was 1.3 for Ghana, 233.60 for Japan, and 728.42 for USA. The rate of larceny for 2000 was 0.08 for Ghana, 1401.26 for Japan, and 2475.27 for USA. The rate for motor vehicle theft in 2000 was not reported for Ghana. The rate for all index offenses combined was 461.28 for Ghana, compared with 1709.88 for Japan and 4123.97 for USA (noting that motor vehicle theft was omitted as part of this total for Ghana).

Source: Comparative Criminology | Africa - Ghana (http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/rwinslow/africa/ghana.html)

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/09/major_findings.php

Taylor's main points in the color of crime have been refuted by Tim Wise in the color of deception (http://www.zmag.org/Sustainers/Content/2004-10/19wise.cfm).



Live in a majority black area for years and you notice a clear difference in culture, based mainly on race. Of course there are wiggers/chavs which embrace this culture, though I see a lof of these to be poseurs (from personal experience).

From my personal experience, having lived among majority Whites and Blacks for several years respectively at a similar socio-economic status, I can say that the major difference is in the type of music listened to and clothes worn.

Not much else.

I went to high school in both enviroments. In both places teen girls still got pregnant. There were fights. People did drugs. They skipped school etc. etc.

And the degenerate behavior on behalf of the Whites kids was not confined to those who listened to hip hop. The punks, goths and rock fans acted just a badly.

I've been around college students at predominately White schools and Blacks schools same thing.

There is no "magical" racial divide in behavior unless you are looking for it and I am not turning a PC blind eye I am very aware of my surroundings.

Fade the Butcher
12-11-2006, 01:24 PM
Environmentalism, in this sense, is pseudoscience. It can be invoked to explain anything. It's the equivilant of saying "Goddidit."

Morpheus
12-11-2006, 02:18 PM
Environmentalism, in this sense, is pseudoscience. It can be invoked to explain anything. It's the equivilant of saying "Goddidit."

Socio-economic disparities, housing standards and culture correlating with crime rates is a proven fact.

Making note of these trends not being racial but depending on the society and culture in question disproves the naturalist argument from racists that these disparities are caused by biological agents.

When racists ignore this it is they who are indulging in a pseudscientific exercise.

Pseudoscience begins with a hypothesis—usually one which is appealing emotionally,and spectacularly implausible—and then looks only for items which appear to support it.

Conflicting evidence is ignored. Generally speaking, the aim of pseudoscience is to rationalize strongly held beliefs, rather than to investigate or to test alternative possibilities. Pseudoscience specializes in jumping to "congenial conclusions," grinding ideological axes, appealing to preconceived ideas and to widespread misunderstandings. - Rory Coker, Ph.D. (http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html)

Fade the Butcher
12-11-2006, 03:01 PM
Socio-economic disparities, housing standards and culture correlating with crime rates is a proven fact.

Which alone doesn't tell us anything meaningful. The vast majority of people who are poor are not criminals. This is especially true of the elderly.

Making note of these trends not being racial but depending on the society and culture in question disproves the naturalist argument from racists that these disparities are caused by biological agents.

"Culture" is a pseudoscientific term like aether or phlogiston. It is a non-tangible, non-quantifiable, non-testable, non-measureable, invisible, undefinable entity that can be invoked to explain anything. It is hopelessly circular (i.e., cultural differences are explained in terms of cultural differences). Another classic example is God which is always a ready made explanation for ignorance.

When racists ignore this it is they who are indulging in a pseudscientific exercise.

Cultural anthropology doesn't warrant the label science. Explain. How do cultural anthropologists use the scientific method to arrive at their conclusions?

Sulla the Dictator
12-25-2006, 05:24 AM
Environmentalism, in this sense, is pseudoscience. It can be invoked to explain anything. It's the equivilant of saying "Goddidit."

The belief that environment had a profound effect on culture is, in your opinion, like saying 'goddidit'?

Helios Panoptes
12-25-2006, 05:30 AM
He means by "environmentalism" that environmental factors are the sole determinant of human inequality.

Sulla the Dictator
12-25-2006, 07:56 AM
He means by "environmentalism" that environmental factors are the sole determinant of human inequality.

LOL Who said sole?

The question still stands. How, exactly, is the knowledge that environment has an effect on a society's growth like God magick?

Burrhus
12-25-2006, 04:00 PM
I didn't know we were discussing wilderness environments. I think we are talking about the environments that humans make for themselves. Here's a human environment for purposes of this discussion:
http://celibacy.info/images/WhiteTownTallinnEstonia.jpg

Tallinn, Estonia

Here's another environment:

http://celibacy.info/WhiteArchesFlowers.jpg

Yes, I'm saying people create their living environments, not the other way around.

As to whether there was an environment before people, that's a metaphysical question beyond this thread. But yes, consciousness comes first, then phenomena (as in the dream state). My view is that the natural (wild) environment is indeed an emanation of the human consciousness. It did not give birth to us except in our constantly shifting theories and "scenarios" about our origins. Consciousness creates environment (including wilderness). The wilderness does not create consciousness.

I disagree but better left to some other thread.

Burrhus
12-25-2006, 04:27 PM
Those paintings depicted scenes that could be photographed without losing anything, which I imagine is why they were chosen. I don't think anybody believes that life was a fairy tale in olde times, but the beauty of the environments created by white people is what the guy was driving at. Africans could never create things like this.

Integrity's point is well taken. While moral flaws and squalid scenes have been present in white environments, those same environments exhibit magnificent achievements in art, architecture, science, music, philosophy and various intellectual endeavors.

The moral flaws and squalid scenes found in black environments on the other hand tend to typify them and one finds virtually nothing even remotely comparable to the cultural achievements found in white environments. What black culture produced anything in the least bit similar in quality to the Cathedral of Notre Dame de Paris, the music of Bach, the paintings of Rembrandt, the scientific tradition from Galileo to Newton to Darwin to Watson and Crick or the beautiful, civilized cities of pre-WWII Europe?

None.

Petr
12-25-2006, 05:16 PM
The question still stands. How, exactly, is the knowledge that environment has an effect on a society's growth like God magick?
I don't think Fade invested any profound thought upon that statement. He just felt an inner need to make a quick superficially clever-sounding quip, correctness be damned.


Petr

Burrhus
12-25-2006, 05:20 PM
Mansa Musa: You and other racists claim that Blacks are the same whever they live but this is simply not true. Blacks with higher socio-economic status live in areas with far less crime.

Yes, but only a very small percentage of blacks are able to achieve that status and live in the predominantly white low crime areas. The high IQ ones like you have abandoned your fellow blacks to poverty and destitution as a permanent underclass of failure. They need you to lead them to some semblance of cultural stability and wealth but you prefer to be successful in the larger white community.

You are the cause of the black people's condition. Not the racists.

Mansa: There are countries in Africa such as Ghana where Blacks make up nearly 100% of the population and the crime rates are low compared to other countries:

Thank you for pointing out that racially homogenous territories have less crime than mixed-race ones. You have helped make the case for segregation. But then, while segregation would be better for black people as a group, it wouldn't be better for you personally...would it?

I am not being facetious or satirical when I say that I care more about he fate of black people than you do, Mansa. If the successful blacks like you had stayed in the black community and applied yourselves to leading your own people and employing your talents to creating wealth and a viable culture for them, they would not be in the miserable condition that they are in.

You are a modern American black who has been infected with the white disease of individualism. You see yourself, as do most whites sadly, as an individual whose only concern is for himself. You believe that because you have done well that all black people can do well and that their condition is the result of white, racist oppression. But that is not the case, Mansa. Their condition is the result of blacks like you having abandoned them for the benefits to be gained for yourself by assimilating into white society.

Mansa: I went to high school in both enviroments. In both places teen girls still got pregnant. There were fights. People did drugs. They skipped school etc. etc.

And the degenerate behavior on behalf of the Whites kids was not confined to those who listened to hip hop. The punks, goths and rock fans acted just a badly.

I worked in a big city mixed-race high-school for nine years (1994-2003) and I can say with a lot of authority that the black students were overwhelmingly responsible for fights, drugs, pregnancies, low academic achievement and discipline problems in general. Not slightly...overwhelmingly. Day in and day out. And the assistant principals for discipline were ALWAYS black, always for the whole nine years. No white was or even could have been considered for the position.

Every semester when the principal's list for academic achievement came out I read it carefully and looked for the black student's names out of the usual 200 or so on the list. The highest tally was 5! Out of 200 in a school that was 40% black. Five was the highest...2.5% Usually it was less than five. This was in the fourth best school in the city. Good teachers, good facilities, science labs, up-to-date books and no lack of money spent.

White racists are not the problem.

Steppenwolf
12-25-2006, 05:35 PM
I worked in a big city mixed-race high-school for nine years (1994-2003) and I can say with a lot of authority that the black students were overwhelmingly responsible for fights, drugs, pregnancies, low academic achievement and discipline problems in general.
This is what the white race needs.

Burrhus
12-25-2006, 05:50 PM
10 Worst Places to Live in UK
% white
1 – Hull 97
2 – Nottingham 85
3 – Strabane 95
4 - Hackney, London 60 12% other white
5 – Middlesbrough 99
6 – Mansfield 98
7 - Blaenau Gwent, S Wales ndf
8 - Merthyr Tydfil, S Wales 99
9 - Salford, Gtr Manchester 81
10 - Easington, County Durham 99



10 Best Places to Live in UK
% white
1 - Epsom and Ewell 99
2 - City of Westminster 73
3 – Harrogate 98
4 - Ashford, Kent NDF
5 - Stratford Upon Avon 99
6 - East Hertfordshire 98
7 - South Cambridgeshire 98
8 - Mole Valley 99
9 – Guildford 96
10 - West Oxfordshire 97

I'm curious, MrA...what were the criteria for determining best and worst? And who made the judgements about fitting the criteria?

Is the East End a better or worse place to live in now that it is no longer white? How many white, former East Enders would like to move back? How many present East Enders of all races would like to move out?

Jane Jacobs wrote a book titled The Death and Life of Great American Cities. When she tried to come up with a defintion of a slum, she realized that there were no objective standards that applied. Income level, age of housing stock, education level, public facilities and other such factors were not determinative. She finally defined a slum as a place where the people who lived there would rather be living somewhere else.

When the East End was a low-income white area, it was not a slum. The people did not want to leave. They had a community where they were relatively safe and happy. Of course they would have prefered being wealthier as do most people but they knew that that was not their lot in life and were reasonably content with the life that they lived there.

They left when the racial composition changed.

Burrhus
12-25-2006, 06:03 PM
Burrhus:I worked in a big city mixed-race high-school for nine years (1994-2003) and I can say with a lot of authority that the black students were overwhelmingly responsible for fights, drugs, pregnancies, low academic achievement and discipline problems in general.

This is what the white race needs.

I get your point in a round-about sort of way. Given that our schools are race-mixed, white students do need to fight back and refuse to accept a discipline system that leaves them the objects of harassment from blacks.

But better than that would be segregated schools where fighting would be unnecessary and discipline would be accepted as normal white behavior.

And we do need more white women getting pregnant but not under 18 years-old with the father being unemployed, unknown and/or black. We need married white women in their early twenties having babies with employed white men.

MrAngry
12-25-2006, 09:57 PM
I'm curious, MrA...what were the criteria for determining best and worst? And who made the judgements about fitting the criteria?

Crime, income levels, school attainment, unemployment, drug activity.

Is the East End a better or worse place to live in now that it is no longer white? How many white, former East Enders would like to move back? How many present East Enders of all races would like to move out?

Nothing to do with colour, many parts of Hull are worse now than 50 years ago. The death of traditional industries and the advent of the drugs culture has caused this. The East End of London, in particular Tower Hamlets, has a high Pakistani (muslim) population, other areas, Burnley and Oldahm, are similar. The issue isnt crime or drugs that affect the desirability of these areas, but the dense ethnicity and lack of desire to accept the British way of life, they tend to adopt the values and laws of their country of origin, and segregate themselves. This is what the BNP capitalise on, and is what upsets many Britsh people, regardless of colour.


Jane Jacobs wrote a book titled The Death and Life of Great American Cities. When she tried to come up with a defintion of a slum, she realized that there were no objective standards that applied. Income level, age of housing stock, education level, public facilities and other such factors were not determinative. She finally defined a slum as a place where the people who lived there would rather be living somewhere else.

Thats one definition and she's entitled to her opinion, I don't share it.


When the East End was a low-income white area, it was not a slum. The people did not want to leave. They had a community where they were relatively safe and happy. Of course they would have prefered being wealthier as do most people but they knew that that was not their lot in life and were reasonably content with the life that they lived there.

They left when the racial composition changed.


This last statement is very subjective, the East End that you describe is romanticised in novels, crime was high, expectations were low and people of the time always wanted to better themelves and move away, remember that "working class" jobs were plentiful, when those jobs disappeared so did the workers, the last sentence is true.