Can poor whites be scary?

[harjit]

Honest question.

Toronto's subsidized neighbourhoods (I checked out Jane & Finch, Regent Park, and Sherbourne while I lived there) are safer at night than a lot of low income white neighbourhoods in the small towns I've been to.

It's far from perfect, but in absence of the blacks, filippinos, etc. these low rent neighbourhoods would simply be occupied by poor whites who, in my experience, are actually more dangerous.
That was an intriguing remark by Hakluyt.

I have to say, after a long time on these boards (and perhaps compounded by living outside North America) I had completely been lulled into thinking that white people are next to incapable of crime and menace, no matter how poor.

The main image of poor whites in my mind has become one of melancholic poignancy - for example lung-diseased elderly men in Appalachia, low-income folks with two jobs taking lots of prescription medications, generational welfare cases with meth troubles, incest-survivor single moms in the South, unemployed veterans suffering PTSD, etc - rather than anything violent or dangerous.

The kind of tragic but honest and decent folks populating the songs of Emmylou Harris. Basically, victims rather than victimizers.

So I guess you can say the WN squad scored a small propaganda victory with my head. :viking: Well-done gentlemen (and Starr :)).

However the thread from where I pulled the above quote by Hak made me recall certain things, with Frank's mention of Ottawa gangs. I had completely forgotten about them. In the 1970s those white Ledbury toughs would have been certainly quite dangerous and menacing. I grew up fairly close to that area. Nothing mellow and sad about them at all. I don't mean they were racist (hell, nowadays those same gangs are multiracial), just plain scary. Then again, they probably don't hold a candle to black gangs in the U.S., in terms of being life-threatening.

My question: Are there classes/groups of whites out there who are violent and dangerous and lethal? Or is the picture I painted above, of pathos rather than menace, the correct take on underclass whites?

[Crowley]

My question: Are there classes/groups of whites out there who are violent and dangerous and lethal? Or is the picture I painted above, of pathos rather than menace, the correct take on underclass whites?

White culture at its most bare root is a warrior culture so you can extrapolate from that whether it is dangerous or not. I think what you actually mean is are there lower class Whites who are dangerous. And the answer to that is of course, but nevertheless the old addage holds, a Black is safer in a poor White neighborhood than he is in his own neighborhood, but the same does not hold true in a Latino neighborhood.

[Grapple]

You must have missed your Indian history classes, if not then you would realize that it was a bunch of poor whites who were the dregs of British society and made up much of the British Army who made India into a British colony. So yes poor whites are dangerous.

So you better watch out Harjit, the next time you are walking in a poor white neighborhood they might kick your ass and you will be calling them Sahib and running to fetch them their gin and tonics

[curtalus]

Are poor Whites scary?

It all depends upon what you consider 'scary'? What is traumatic for one might well be normal for another. Now if you mean,"Are poor Whites violently disposed?" Yeah, pretty much. But then they have to grow up with poverty, drugs,white trash and niggers,so violence is about the only effective solution set available, and moreover it works wonders. On the other side of the fence if you are in with the particular set of Whites, they are generally good people that would give you anything they have that you need. I believe that this is because poor Whites have more of a community attitude than middle class or upper class Whites, because at the bottom survival is all about group cohesion. But that is just my personal opinion.

[Jake Featherston]

If there existed large numbers (large in the sense of being potentially predominant within a given, geographically-based sector of the community) of truly unpleasant Whites (unpleasant in the way alluded to by Hakluyt and Harjit ie., prone to irrational fits of violence, habitual criminality, etc.), presumably a community of them would exist, somewhere, in the USA. But I've never heard tell of any such place. No one's ever said to me, "Man, those White boys up around Almaden are fuckin' crazy!," or anything like that. White environs, whether suburban, rural, or (rarely, it seems) urban, are invariably places where the local Whites pose no threat to other Whites, and very seldom pose any threat to nonWhites (there are doubtlessly Polish areas in or around Detroit, Italian areas in NYC, etc., where they still don't take too kindly to niggers, however, but that is due to numerous unpleasant experiences in the short & medium term, which just means such people are educable). Such places are doubtlessly quite safe for a respectable, assimilated Chinaman, Hindoo, etc.

[delete]

My question: Are there classes/groups of whites out there who are violent and dangerous and lethal? Or is the picture I painted above, of pathos rather than menace, the correct take on underclass whites?

My take on it is yes on both. The white underclass is more pathos than menace, and they are not particularly dangerous FMPOV.

Who is dangerous FMPOV, is competent white men when they feel like they have nothing to loose, and have a previous history of solving conflicts with violence.

Hells Angels in Denmark, for instance, has a war going on with immigrant youths over the drugs market, and though the immigrants have more people, competent whites usually don't needs two shots to kill somebody, while the immigrants will spay a storm of bullets without hitting anything.

[Jake Featherston]

Hells Angels in Denmark, for instance, has a war going on with immigrant youths over the drugs market, and though the immigrants have more people, competent whites usually don't needs two shots to kill somebody, while the immigrants will spay a storm of bullets without hitting anything.

Primitive, excitable hotheads who still can't believe their own luck they don't have to work the fields by hand, can own a bang stick, etc. Only fearsome if a group of them catch you alone, or otherwise substantially outnumbered. Whereas I may have no respect for motorcycle gangs, if I knew they were out to get me, I would be very afraid. Probably start looking to arm myself, and making out my will.

Whites aroused to warrior status are the most fearsome beings on Earth, with probably only the Mongols coming close to our level of ferocity (and they haven't been active for some time), but Whites don't all go kill crazy for no reason, merely because they haven't got lots of money, or some damn thing. Whereas even middle class Black suburbs (there are a few) still experience very high rates of criminality.

[Apocales]

I have dealt with many homeless people here in Phoenix, generally they might be aggressive on the panhandling but once they get enough for their 1/5 of cheap booze, they retire upon the closed back-end of a parking lot.

[delete]

If there existed large numbers (large in the sense of being potentially predominant within a given, geographically-based sector of the community) of truly unpleasant Whites (unpleasant in the way alluded to by Hakluyt and Harjit ie., prone to irrational fits of violence, habitual criminality, etc.), presumably a community of them would exist, somewhere, in the USA.

When whites starts fighting back, it will be under the support of local racist police, since the community the policemen live in, see it as a legitimate fight.

For instance a story from where I live might illustrate what I mean. It started with a Norwegian beating up a Somali on a disco toilet pretty bad. The friends of the Somali did not like this, so they tried to get even inside the disco, with the result that the doormen came and the Somalians got thrown out, after having been collectively been beaten up at little bit.

Later, the same guy and one more, walks alone to another pub, and manage to meet up with the Somalians again. Luckily for him, the police arrive, see what is going on and arrest all the Somalians.

This later goes to court, but only the last attack on the Norwegian, since the police did not investigate the first two incidences at all. They for instance did not ask him what had happened before in the evening, so when their defense lawyer brought it up during trial, he just said he knew nothing about it, and that the beat up Somali dude, must have been mistaken in his identity. Since there had been no police investigation of this, there were no witnesses present, and the court just sentenced the Somalians for the attack that the police had witnessed.

I don't know if this last part is true, but the guy claims that the policewoman who handled the case, asked him after the trial was finished, if he really beat up the first Somalian, to which he said yes, and she said good.

[Jake Featherston]

the guy claims that the policewoman who handled the case, asked him after the trial was finished, if he really beat up the first Somalian, to which he said yes, and she said good.

Well, that's something, I suppose.

[delete]

Well, that's something, I suppose.

If we civilians start having problems with particulary Somalians, imagine the police, social workers, judges teachers etc, who meet them on a daily basis thinks?

It was for instance somebody in the police that leaked the report that said all violent rapes in 2008 were committed by immigrants, most probably because they are many times as pissed about it as the population, who does not know, because the press don't really report on it.

[Flying Drumhead Court-Martial]

I've lived in cities, but I've never really felt threatened by all the nigger and spick gangs. I still go to Compton sometimes, and I've never saw what the big deal was with that place. However, when I lived in the woods I was more careful not to piss anyone off. Rural whites can be dangerous and scary people.

[Gleb]

The scariest people I've ever met were amongst Russian analog of American white trash and by far the most dangerous. Ghetto blacks have got nothing on them. Where blacks usually attack because they want to rob you, these guys would do it for the lulz.

[Dreadnought]

There seems to be a pattern in Britain, where a group of young men drunk out of their minds on cider will pick a fight with some guy and beat him to death. This seems to be done by whites pretty much all the time, though I'm not sure if it's always underclass whites.

Harjit… maybe you can head to Glasgow or Limerick and then talk about the nice quiet white people. :o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti2rqlUycM4&feature=related

@Jake: I thought there were Irish knacker communities in parts of America? Surely they are dangerous.

[Jake Featherston]

I believe, technically, there are some Irish travelers here in the USA, but they are so few in number, I've never heard anything about them. Most probably tend towards the northeast, so I'm 3,000 miles away from them. Whether they represent actual communities of dangerous Whites, or just a sprinkling of dangerous Whites residing with a larger Irish-American community in the Boston-area or wherenot, I can't really say, but I suspect its more the latter.

[A. Radek]

I believe, technically, there are some Irish travelers here in the USA, but they are so few in number, I've never heard anything about them. Most probably tend towards the northeast, so I'm 3,000 miles away from them. Whether they represent actual communities of dangerous Whites, or just a sprinkling of dangerous Whites residing with a larger Irish-American community in the Boston-area or wherenot, I can't really say, but I suspect its more the latter.

There is a large community of them where I live. I went to grade school with their kids. They are removed from school after completing the 6th grade, and then they go to work. Some are grifters, but mostly they do construction work, and they do travel. They own a RV park and a trailer park here. They also live in North Carolina, where there is a gated suburb they own; very nice upper middle class houses on big lots.

They aren't violent at all, just real clannish, and have their own dialect. None have ever been arrested in the town they live in, except for traffic stuff and false ID's discovered during traffic stops. There was a big news story a while ago showing one them on a shopping Mall camera spanking one of her kids that was causing a problem getting in their SUV that raised a big stink with the Oprah zombies, but other that you don't know they're here. I get along with them fine; some installed the siding on my house and have done several roofing jobs for me over the years. They do excellent work.

When you hear them talk, you think they're Brits or Irish tourists; nobody thinks 'TRAVELLERS!!!!!' and run away screaming or anything.

they're kind of funny; they nearly all drive the same color and model of trucks, and nearly all have the same model and color of travel trailers, and all those with house trailers have the same model and color of house trailer.

[O'Zebedee]

maybe you can head to Glasgow

Yeah, you have to be careful there - especially places like Easterhouse.

[Greenberg]

I wouldn't say "scary", because little punks in baggy jeans are not intimidating. But if I were an elderly man I would be wary of many of the poor whites around my city, and not just the wiggers either. They might swarm someone just for the fun of it, or they may want money for crack or oxycontin and are willing to attack you for it.

[James DeGrizz]

I'm used to riding public busses that are all black, which I find frightening, but when I go to Pittsburgh there are whites on the busses and it's much less scary. Most of my family are poor whites so that may have something to do with it.

[calvin]

There are more white scum around than there were when I was a young teenager and assaults and attacks have become more violent, but not necessarily much more frequent. Young teenagers are noticeably more offensive, ill mannered and aggressive in general. This is entirely to do with the "rights" industry and dysgenics. The most racist and numerous gangs in the UK are Pakistani Muslims. The most violent gangs in the UK are Somalian and Albanian, although the Albanians direct their violence against young girls whom they kidnap, rape into submission and sell as sex slaves. Regardless of race, when you see the behaviour of some of our modern street trash, you begin to long for the Brazilian solution, anonymous vans full of gunmen shooting them the fuck dead.

It should be noted that ethnics are protected from assault by draconian race laws. White victims of racist ethnic attacks are always accused of inciting the attack by making racially abusive remarks, this is seen as strong mitigation by the legal industry. It's pretty risky for white scum to attack ethnics, but quite easy for ethnics to get away with attacking whites. This is all part of the middle-class assault on the working classes.

[Dreadnought]

This is all part of the middle-class assault on the working classes. This is supposed to mean what? :rolleyes: yeah middle class people sure love scum who hide behind their 'rights'…

[A. Radek]

There are more white scum around than there were when I was a young teenager and assaults and attacks have become more violent, but not necessarily much more frequent. Young teenagers are noticeably more offensive, ill mannered and aggressive in general. This is entirely to do with the "rights" industry and dysgenics. The most racist and numerous gangs in the UK are Pakistani Muslims. The most violent gangs in the UK are Somalian and Albanian, although the Albanians direct their violence against young girls whom they kidnap, rape into submission and sell as sex slaves. Regardless of race, when you see the behaviour of some of our modern street trash, you begin to long for the Brazilian solution, anonymous vans full of gunmen shooting them the fuck dead.

It should be noted that ethnics are protected from assault by draconian race laws. White victims of racist ethnic attacks are always accused of inciting the attack by making racially abusive remarks, this is seen as strong mitigation by the legal industry. It's pretty risky for white scum to attack ethnics, but quite easy for ethnics to get away with attacking whites. This is all part of the middle-class assault on the working classes.

Yes, pretty much. It's the same in the U.S. It's a key strategy to economically marginalize and electorally disenfranchise the largest voting blocs in the West most actively opposed to 'Globalism' by both neoliberals and their partners the conservatives. Most 'liberals' in fact want a race war, against workng and middle class whites, despite all their hyperbole to the contrary.

What we are witnessing is nothing short of the breakup of the historic Democratic coalition. Chris Bowers, Obama supporter and writer at Open Left, dreams of a cultural change in an Obama Democratic Party which is almost a parody of the brie and Chardonnay stereotype:

There should be a major cultural shift in the party, where the southern Dems and Liebercrat elite will be largely replaced by rising creative class types. Obama has all the markers of a creative class background, from his community organizing, to his Unitarianism, to being an academic, to living in Hyde Park to shopping at Whole Foods and drinking PBR. These will be the type of people running the Democratic Party now, and it will be a big cultural shift from the white working class focus of earlier decades.

Further illustrating their break with traditional liberalism, Markos Moulitsas has declared himself a libertarian Democrat, in other words: a politically correct Republican. These neo-liberals are really proposing a Party run by those who have little need for government and instead focus on identity politics, environmentalism, post-partisan government, and the rejection of American exceptionalism. The neo-liberals demonize the traditional Democratic base of poor white voters precisely because these voters rely on government and expect their leadership to fight partisan battles on their behalf. They are also deeply patriotic and weary of the moral relativism put forward by the likes of Jeremiah Wright.

Because of Obama’s anemic performances in West Virginia and Kentucky, the campaign and its supporters imagine a new Party. Sean Wilentz writes

the Barack Obama campaign and its sympathizers have begun to articulate much more clearly what they mean by their vague slogan of “change” - nothing less than usurping the historic Democratic Party, dating back to the age of Andrew Jackson, by rejecting its historic electoral core: white workers and rural dwellers in the Middle Atlantic and border states.

It remains to be seen whether the breakup of the Democratic Party more resembles (A) the McGovern disaster of 1972 and 20 years in the wilderness, or (B) a dismantling of the current coalition more akin to the Republicans replacing the Whigs in 1856.

In whatever form our Party takes, the perpetrators of this breakup are the Obama campaign and the neo-liberals. It’s their demonization of low-income white Americans which is largely the cause of our coalition’s breakup. Wilentz continues:

Without a majority of those voters, the Democrats have, since the party’s inception in the 1820s, been incapable of winning the presidency. The Obama advocates declare, though, that we have entered an entirely new political era. It is not only possible but also desirable, they say, for Democrats to win by turning away from those whom “progressive” pundits and bloggers disdain variously as “Nascar man,” “uneducated,” “low information” whites, “rubes, fools, and hate-mongers” who live in the nation’s “shitholes.”

Hillary’s ability to keep this race so close, with virtually no African American support, shows Obama’s incredible weakness as a candidate. This is not because of race, as the neo-liberal race-baiters would have you believe, but because Obama does not articulate an economic message which appeals to low-income whites. According to Wilentz:

Every poll shows that economics, health care, and national security are the leading issues for white working class voters - and for Latino working class voters as well. These constituencies have cast positive ballots for Hillary Clinton not because she is white, but because they regard her as better on these issues. Obama’s campaign and its passionate supporters refuse to acknowledge that these voters consider him weaker — and that Clinton’s positions, different from his, as well as her experience actually attract support. Instead they impute racism to working class Democrats who, the polls also show, happen to be liberal on every leading issue. The effort to taint anyone who does not support Obama as motivated by racism has now become a major factor in alienating core Democrats from Obama’s campaign.

The class warfare now raging in the Democratic Party, while both sides ostensibly are on the Left, is actually the classic struggle between the proletariat workers (blue-collar whites and Latinos) and the petite bourgeoisie (neo-liberals). African Americans have mostly gone to Obama because of the historic nature of his candidacy; many, however, were pushed to Obama by the race-baiting wedge utilized by Obama and the neo-liberals, a tactic identical in form and result as that used by Lee Atwater and other Republican operatives. Obama’s hostility towards the white working class, as seen with his bitter-gate remarks, is the exact framework from which many of the neo-liberals view this struggle:

Obama’s dismissal of white working people represents a sea-change in the Democrats’ basic identity as the workingman’s party - one that has been coming since the late 1960s, when large portions of the Left began regarding white workers as hopeless and hateful reactionaries.

No Quarter (http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/27/the-neo-liberal-war-on-blue-collar-whites-and-the-breakup-of-the-democratic-party/)

Bold added by me. So, even the independent Left sees it plainly.

[ScottishStalinist1]

Harjit… maybe you can head to Glasgow .

Short documentary on Glasgow gangs:

Ti2rqlUycM4

I would add that, unless you are walking around yourself at the weekend, Scottish 'gangs' are not scary for someone not involved with a rival gang. You might get verbal abuse if you look odd, but other than that they generally do not target innocents from my experience.

[Member 198]

It should be noted that ethnics are protected from assault by draconian race laws. White victims of racist ethnic attacks are always accused of inciting the attack by making racially abusive remarks, this is seen as strong mitigation by the legal industry. It's pretty risky for white scum to attack ethnics, but quite easy for ethnics to get away with attacking whites. This is all part of the middle-class assault on the working classes.

Stop referring to foreigners as "ethnics", as it implies that only non-Europids are capable of possessing culture/ethnicity.

[calvin]

Stop referring to foreigners as "ethnics"

Did you perhaps mean to say, "I think it's a bad idea to refer to foreigners as ethnics" ?

[calvin]

Radek

Very interesting post. The problem with a discussion about economically defined social group dynamics, is that the old "class" definitions have changed. In any society power devolves to the group that can best manipulate the available instruments of power. In the middle-ages control of arable land was vital, as the centuries rolled on capital replaced land, in the modern paradigm the ability to manipulate and control information is the key to power. We are seeing the rise of a new class who have both realised this, and who have the natural aptitudes and inclination to exploit the new opportunities.

The new elite class are a class that is highly skilled in verbal emotional manipulation. This class are able to rise because modern mass information technology coincides with their particular limited skill set. This is a class that is able to exercise universal blackmail (universal in respect of the fact that all social classes must submit to its authority) through scare stories like anthropogenic global warming, global terror, global disease pandemics and by guilt tripping people with nonsense about universal human rights. The common thread is "global", because this elite are essentially transnational, their allegiance, like the feudal nobility, is to class before nation.

The problem in addressing this reality is that the new class transcends many of the old economic boundaries being essentially an ideological class and not strictly an economic class. Of course just as in the old Soviet Union some were more equal than others, the new class will at first guiltily and then blatantly, grant itself exclusive privileges, for what would be the point of participating in such an ideological struggle if it didn't?

[OVERWATCH]

White culture at its most bare root is a warrior culture so you can extrapolate from that whether it is dangerous or not.

I'd say amerinds have warrior culture, at least traditionally; not to be confused with the militaristic culture of whites.

To answer the OP, field research conducted in dicey spots, such as dive bars for e.g., confirms that whites can be niggers too. :D

[Anarch]

Are there... groups of whites out there who are violent and dangerous and lethal?
Sure there are. Are they noticable? Probably not.

[Empress Cheesatine]

My question: Are there classes/groups of whites out there who are violent and dangerous and lethal? Or is the picture I painted above, of pathos rather than menace, the correct take on underclass whites?

Most poor whites, at least ones around larger cities, are single mothers. I grew up around a lot of poorer whites. There were ones that were definitely trashy and maladjusted, but the idea that they are as violent, dangerous and lethal to say their black and latino counterparts is absolutely not the case. The level of criminality among them is certainly higher, at least in my own experience, than other whites. Our area did not have gangs, gang graffiti, homeless people, streetwalkers, etc. A couple of guys got busted for holding up a bank. A couple other families had kids that kept beating up on each other. There was a couple across the street who had bouts of domestic violence. We had some neighbors whose kids threw rocks at us, etc. That's about as evil as run of the mill white trash get. Although it wasn't nearly like this when we moved to Littleton. The poorer part of Littleton is a lot of single mothers. I never saw anyone criminally busted (except for the ones that the cops caught stealing our cable tv), although a few pushed the envelope.

[andrelukic]

A lot of these places are overhyped by the media-how many Texas Chainsaw Massacres and Hills have Eyes do we have to watch to get the message that American rural Whites are deranged killers? I remember speaking to some Italians from Venice about visiting Naples and they all assured me I'd be robbed or murdered by mafia types. Of course nothing even remarkably threatening happened when I visited. I have some distant relative living in Glasgow and he always talks it up and claims that the hype about the city is just that:hype. I've never been but watching that video on 'Glasgow Gangs' didn't quite portray an intimidating image. How many people other than children would be scared of those kids featured in the video?

[Felix the Cat]

Naples is a shithole. I have friends who went there on holiday and definitely were robbed. The police were in on it too.

[Svafnir]

I've lived in cities, but I've never really felt threatened by all the nigger and spick gangs. I still go to Compton sometimes, and I've never saw what the big deal was with that place. However, when I lived in the woods I was more careful not to piss anyone off. Rural whites can be dangerous and scary people.
There are small towns a short drive from my home that it is not wise for people of color to let the sun set while they are there, and even whites should not cause much of a disturbance while visiting.

[andrelukic]

Naples is a shithole. I have friends who went there on holiday and definitely were robbed. The police were in on it too.

As a tourist I only passed through north Naples, so I was never stayed in the bad portions of the city. I think people that get robbed tend to be people who stick out more than anything else. I was in London for about a year trying to learn the english language when my sister decided to visit. She went to some museum and some teenagers snatched her purse and ran off. She stupidly carried all her money for her trip in that bag. London is a fairly safe city but it happened to her because she looked like a tourist. I generally don't make myself to appear as an outsider and I have never been robbed only burglarized even though I have lived in some bad high crime areas.