The Right don’t belive in law and order……

“Drugs money worth billions of dollars kept the financial system afloat at the height of the global crisis, the United Nations‘ drugs and crime tsar has told the Observer.

Antonio Maria Costa, head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, said he has seen evidence that the proceeds of organised crime were “the only liquid investment capital” available to some banks on the brink of collapse last year. He said that a majority of the $352bn (£216bn) of drugs profits was absorbed into the economic system as a result.

This will raise questions about crime’s influence on the economic system at times of crisis. It will also prompt further examination of the banking sector as world leaders, including Barack Obama and Gordon Brown, call for new International Monetary Fund regulations. Speaking from his office in Vienna, Costa said evidence that illegal money was being absorbed into the financial system was first drawn to his attention by intelligence agencies and prosecutors around 18 months ago. “In many instances, the money from drugs was the only liquid investment capital. In the second half of 2008, liquidity was the banking system’s main problem and hence liquid capital became an important factor,” he said.

Some of the evidence put before his office indicated that gang money was used to save some banks from collapse when lending seized up, he said.”

Economic factors are contributory factors to crime rather than sufficient causes in themselves. Where is the economic ‘incentive’ to commit violent or sexual offenses? It just brings unwanted attention the police. Where’s the economic ‘incentive’ to take – rather than sell – drugs?

I’d suggest a lack of dis-incentives is more important. If you have no prospects why NOT turn to crime? Once you’ve got a criminal record whatever prospects you once had are further limited. Prison isn’t a disincentive if you live in a slum and can’t afford adequate heating or decent food.

It’s not about incentives to commit crime or spare time to do it in (any evidence of people on flexi-time committing more crime? Thought not) but having fuck all to lose.

the poor are disproportionately likely to commit crime

Can you justify this statement?

Doesn´t depend on how you define crime?

By reports, genes can explain a lot of unexpected behavioural traits:

“UNFAITHFUL women have a new excuse — their misbehaviour might be down to their genes. A scientific study has shown that a woman’s tendency to be unfaithful could be linked to particular genes inherited from her parents.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article442311.ece

“Blacks are disproportionately likely to be poor, and the poor are disproportionately likely to commit crime. We’d expect, therefore, blacks to be over-represented in crime even if there were no causal link from race to crime.”

Hmm…..
Hmm……
Hmm…….

Why are blacks disproportionally likely to be poor when proportionally they have far more rights (purely because of their skin colour and ethnicity) than whites do. In fact all ethnicities have more rights than white people do.

Fact 1: If a black person is refused a drink in a bar or doesn’t get the job there is automatic grounds for racism on the bar manager/employer’s part.

Fact 2: Any attack whatsoever on a black person is automatically viewed as a racist attack and a hate crime.

Fact 3: All blacks have more than enough help with schooling, health and social benefits over white people. Have you ever tried to get a council/housing association house in London as a white person? You’ll find them to be bottom of the list.

Why are they poor when they have all the chances that white people have? Again, liberal/socialist attitudes to life. Black people are poor because society gives them a raw deal. Of course, society is so bad that instead of black children choosing to learn at school (not all) society (the white establishment) is blames because black youths want to join gangs, not educate themselves, smoke ganja and generally cause trouble and disruption should they go to school. So it’s bad man whitey’s fault that black children don’t want to learn. Then they bring the next factor in – “Black children aren’t learning because they don’t have enough black teachers or black role models in society..” Again, play the blame game.

There are other ethnic minorities who do achieve at school. The Chinese, the Asian Hindu and Sikhs, although it can be said that Muslims don’t, as many Muslim youth look at them as black innit?

Black people are exceptionally different from white people and this goes back to evolving in their land. Blacks in the UK who are educated in predominately white schools, with white culture inevitably end up as valuable members of society. Blacks who grow up in predominately black schools, under non British culture don’t become valuable members of society. All to often they end up as criminals.

“From this perspective, what’s remarkable is how few blacks commit crime. There are over 800,000 blacks living in London, but in 2007 only 4435 – less than 1 in 180 – were found guilty in a crown court (table 6.4 of this pdf).”

Really? You find that remarkable do you? Recent figures show, although I believe to be highly doctored so as not to offend the black community as well as support NuLabour’s multicultural experiment, that blacks commit 46.9% of overall crime in London. If, as you say there are 800k blacks in London then that means that there are around 5.5 million whites in London if we take the population of London to be 7million. It therefore means there are roughly seven times more whites in London than black. It also means that proportionally to racial demographic the total amount of crime by blacks should be around 14%. At nearly the same percentage (recorded) to whites and other ethnicities, blacks are by racial demographic prone to more criminal behaviour than white people and other ethnicities. So your analysis is wrong. Blacks commit far more crime per head than white people do. More liberal, left wing nonsense I’m afraid to say. Continue living with your head in the sand while Rome burns.

“When it comes to tax, the right are keen to stress that people respond to incentives. And yet when it comes to crime they seem coy about incentives, and prefer to talk about “multiculturalism“ or genes.”

This seems to be the complete opposite of reality, deterrence is founded upon the idea that criminals respond to incentives.

Take criminologist James Q Wilson, who I think it is fair to consider as being reasonably representitive of right wing thought on crime:

“This debate over the way the costs and benefits of crime affect crime rates is usually called a debate over deterrence–a debate, that is, over the efficacy (and perhaps even the propriety) of trying to prevent crime by making would-be offenders fearful of punishment. But the theory of human nature that supports the idea of deterrence–the theory that people respond to the penalties associated with crime–also assumes that people will take jobs in preference to crime if the jobs are more attractive. In both cases, we are saying that would-be offenders are rational and that they respond to their perception of the costs and benefits attached to alternative courses of action.”

Give it an hour and this thread’ll be knee-deep in jokers pretending they’re descended from King Arthur while shouting God help us if there’s ever another race war.

I have to say though, recent threads have been an eye-opener. I thought racist headbangers had decided to leave black people alone for a bit so they can concentrate their fire on the Muslims and the Jews. All this has been a timely reminder that a small number of wacky ballbags have thoroughly deranged views on more or less everyone who isn’t white and English.

@5 winston the racist

http://www.hopelessromantic.com/crazy/crazy_man_straight_jacket_hg_blk.gif

5 Fact… Brownshirt has problems with people with black skins.

@ 8. sevillista

Nothing racist in my reply but 100% realist. It’s something the left are unable to do. The word realism doesn’t come into their thought process. They’re all too busy living in their multicultural love bubble, oblivious to history and what happens to people when cultures meet and conflict with one another.

However, I will take the word “racist” that you have called me in its original meaning. I am proud of my culture, proud of my ancestry and proud to continually want to promote that onto my children. I don’t want some third world inferior culture being forced upon my children, especially from the same very people who fled their own country because they’re culture was simply poo.

Do you know who the first person was that coined and used the phrase “racist”?
I’ll give you a clue shall I? He was German, he was left wing, he was a Zionist, he was very wealthy, he caused untold damage to Russia and the Russian people and he used the word racist when describing the slavophile, because they would not surrender their cultures and traditions to the take over of Communism.

However, continue to attack me with liberal left, debate killing, conversation ending slurs for it’s all the liberal and socialist left are good at.

@9

“5 Fact… Brownshirt has problems with people with black skins.”

You’ll find that the new fascists are in fact the Liberals. Then again, seeing as fascism is left wing then it makes perfect sense.

Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning : http://www.amazon.co.uk/Liberal-Fascism-History-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0141039507/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260737983&sr=8-1

Sadly, the left is utterly oblivious to the fact that it is actually the proponents of Fascism and Racism. I’ll leave you to think on that, although with your limited knowledge on common sense and understanding, you’ll never work out why! LOL

Do you know who the first person was that coined and used the phrase “racist”? I’ll give you a clue shall I? He was German, he was left wing, he was a Zionist, he was very wealthy, he caused untold damage to Russia and the Russian people and he used the word racist when describing the slavophile, because they would not surrender their cultures and traditions to the take over of Communism.

David Hasselhoff?

Brownshirt “Nothing racist in my reply but 100% realist.”

” I am proud of my culture, proud of my ancestry and proud to continually want to promote that onto my children. I don’t want some third world inferior culture being forced upon my children, especially from the same very people who fled their own country because they’re culture was simply poo”

Oh dear. the troll is delusional as well as unhinged. Nobody on here gives a flying fuck what your think. Nobody cares about you or your littler hitler youth children and your rascist theories. Go off to Guido, they love brownshirts on there.

Oh wats the wascally waycists are back!

Idiot brownshirt…… “Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning : http://www.amazon.co.uk/Liberal-Fascism-History-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0141039507/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260737983&sr=8-1”

HA HA HA

Dear oh dear, you really are a moron if you are going to try to back up your weird theories by quoting Jonah Goldberg. The guy is an even bigger idiot than you, and writes drivel dressed up as fact.

@ winston the racist

“Why are blacks disproportionally likely to be poor when proportionally they have far more rights (purely because of their skin colour and ethnicity) than whites do. In fact all ethnicities have more rights than white people do”

What rights do other ethnicities have which you do not? I really don’t understand.

“Fact 1: If a black person is refused a drink in a bar or doesn’t get the job there is automatic grounds for racism on the bar manager/employer’s part.”

No. If the reason for this happening was just BECAUSE they were of a different ethnicity, then there would be a problem. If it happened because they were causing trouble in the pub before, or they were not good enough for the job, no problem. Surely you can see the distinction, even if you will not agree that discriminating against people due to the colour of their skin is wrong and irrational.

“Fact 2: Any attack whatsoever on a black person is automatically viewed as a racist attack and a hate crime”

Again, it is not. If the reason for said attack was because the perpertrator found someone having a different colour skin “provocative” then it is a racist attack and a hate crime.

“Have you ever tried to get a council/housing association house in London as a white person? You’ll find them to be bottom of the list”

Please, do tell me which local authorities have “not being white” as a criteria in allocating council housing.

Check out this http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/aio/1138581 on page 17 which tells you that of 178,136 social housing lettings in 2006/07, 147,480 were to white people and 4,473 were to non-UK nationals.

“Of course, society is so bad that instead of black children choosing to learn at school (not all) society (the white establishment) is blames because black youths want to join gangs, not educate themselves, smoke ganja and generally cause trouble and disruption should they go to school”

But don’t all these problems also afflict white working-class communities? Is this because they have defective skin too?

@Winston

As no one has actually used the word yet, and to echo Kate Belgrave‘s comment on another thread, you are a cunt.

No that we’ve got all that eloquent stuff out the way we can proceed to ignore you.

[Columbo]One last thing[/Columbo]

Nothing racist in my reply but 100% realist.

Um, what about we pick a random selection of your previous comments, eh?

Black people are exceptionally different from white people and this goes back to evolving in their land.

BINGO!

And the ignorance and slur words come pouring out as only the left know how!

LOL

The stupidity shown by the above is overwhelming.
I especially like the reply to me from Left Outside who is that stupid he can’t see there is difference between black people and white people and that it has all to do with evolving in different climate.

Then again the stupidity of the left is measured up by the simple reason they do not see difference instead WE ARE ALL THE SAME.

What a bunch of morons you all are. I would love to continue this debate, but really none of you have the intelligence, let alone any common sense.

Hasta la vista babies

(laughs at being called racist because I said that black people are different to white people……..)

Well, I’m not ever going to get round to reading Goldberg’s work but here’s an entertaining review:-

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=jonah_goldbergs_bizarro_history

“Goldberg proceeds to define everything that he himself considers undesirable as “fascist.” This is just about everything even remotely and vaguely thought of as “liberal”: vegetarianism, Social Security, multiculturalism, the “war on poverty,” “the politics of meaning.” The figures he labels as fascist range from Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt to Lyndon B. Johnson and Hillary Clinton. Goldberg’s primary achievement is to rob the word of all meaning — Newspeak incarnate.

The term “fascism” certainly is overused and abused. The public understanding of it is fuzzy at best, and academics struggle to agree on a definition, as Goldberg observes — and he makes use of that confusion to ramble on for pages about the disagreements without ever providing readers with a clear definition of fascism beyond Orwell’s quip.

Along the way, he grotesquely misrepresents the state of academia regarding the study of fascism, which, while widely varying in many regards, has seen a broad consensus develop regarding certain ineluctable traits that are uniquely and definitively fascist: its populism and ultranationalism, its anti-intellectualism, its carefully groomed culture of violence, its insistence that it represents the true national identity, its treatment of dissent as treason, and what Oxford Brookes scholar Roger Griffin calls its “palingenesis” — that is, its core myth of a phoenix-like rebirth of the national identity in the mold of a nonexistent Golden Age. And, of course, it has historically always been vigorously — no, viciously — anti-liberal. ”

If that’s accurate, his fan here seems to be as free with the definitions of fascism and liberal (not to mention racism) as Goldberg i.e. makes them up as he goes along.

Quiz – what label does our skull-measuring friend here use to describe his political philosophy?

(a) Racial nationalist
(b) English Patriot
(c) Libertarian

Goldberg’s mother was out of the Nixon White House, and was behind the whole Monica Lewinski scandal. It was she who persuaded Linda Tripp, a friend of Monica’s to wear a wire tap when meeting Monica for lunch so the wing nuts could get the goods on Clinton.

Her son is the same kind of scum.

“The paradox is this. When it comes to tax, the right are keen to stress that people respond to incentives. And yet when it comes to crime they seem coy about incentives, and prefer to talk about “multiculturalism“ or genes.”

The respone of the “traditional right” to crime is to increase policing, increase sentences, basically to increase consequences, as a disincentive to criminality, or if you like an incentive to be law abiding. Seems entirely consitent to me.

“The respone of the “traditional right” to crime is to increase policing, increase sentences, basically to increase consequences, as a disincentive to criminality, or if you like an incentive to be law abiding. Seems entirely consitent to me.”

Except if that crime has been done under the name of ‘ business.” Then you give them a knighthood.

Why are blacks disproportionally likely to be poor when proportionally they have far more rights (purely because of their skin colour and ethnicity) than whites do

you just mention ‘black’ on this blog and BNP sympathisers turn up.

@ 23 – or a very large wad of taxpayers cash perhaps (ahem) ?

Three barely relevant points…

1. Surely crown court cases are an inadequate statistic? If I wandered into the street, kicked a passer-by and got three months, I could hardly stand up and cry, “But I’m innocent, I tell you – this is only a magistrates’ court!”

2. Just to add to KBPlayer‘s link…

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2008/01/liberal-fascism-response.html

(I actually think the historical connections between fascism and self-proclaimed liberals would be quite an interesting subject. Goldberg’s book, though – much of which I’ve read – seems to be, for the most part, an extended exersize in saying “no you’re the real fascists, nah nah ne nah nah“.)

This isn’t a fact, it doesn’t even make sense! Are you suggesting that “all blacks have more than enough help with schooling, health and social benefits” or that “all blacks have more…help with schooling, health and social benefits [than] white people“? And this, whichever it is, is justified with, well – implied anecdotal evidence. “Fact“s are clearly a lot less stringent than I’d thought…

One suddenly relevant point…

I hate html.

Yes, but since the Left makes the same inconsistent inferences in reverse, doesn’t it mean that each is wrong?

Fascism isn’t an absolute though, any more than liberal or conservative are, they are socially constructed. 20 years ago a ban on smoking would be considered facscist, now it isn’t.

Anyway the last time this debate did the rounds on LC the consensus was that fascism = communism + nationalism.

Larry Teabag@ 20

Ha ha trick question:-

(d) ethno-nationalist

I did my research here:-

http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2009/12/08/what-to-do-about-boggle-eyed-spectator-bores/

“Skull-measuring” – are this lot reviving the Victorian science of phrenology as well as early twentieth century racial theory (with a new double-helix twist of DNA)?

Fascism isn’t an absolute though, any more than liberal or conservative are, they are socially constructed. 20 years ago a ban on smoking would be considered facscist, now it isn’t.

If you used the word “fascist” loosely and lazily, usually meaning “authoritarian” or even “bossy” 20, 30, 40 years ago. However, it is a problematic word.

Bzzt. Probably right in general, but this particualr specimen fancies himself as a “libertarian”.

Mind you Old Holborn opened my eyes to the incredible diversity of views under the libertarian umbrella, so I don’t see why white supremacism should be excluded…

“From this perspective, what’s remarkable is how few blacks commit crime. There are over 800,000 blacks living in London, but in 2007 only 4435 – less than 1 in 180 – were found guilty in a crown court (table 6.4 of this pdf).”

Really? You find that remarkable do you? Recent figures show, although I believe to be highly doctored so as not to offend the black community as well as support NuLabour’s multicultural experiment, that blacks commit 46.9% of overall crime in London. If, as you say there are 800k blacks in London then that means that there are around 5.5 million whites in London if we take the population of London to be 7million. It therefore means there are roughly seven times more whites in London than black. It also means that proportionally to racial demographic the total amount of crime by blacks should be around 14%. At nearly the same percentage (recorded) to whites and other ethnicities, blacks are by racial demographic prone to more criminal behaviour than white people and other ethnicities. So your analysis is wrong. Blacks commit far more crime per head than white people do. More liberal, left wing nonsense I’m afraid to say. Continue living with your head in the sand while Rome burns.”

Besides calling this guy a racist – can you actually comment on what he has said?

Calling someone a racist, stops the conversation – and like it or not you guys have to learn to debate with the BNP as they get more and more popular.

Its the tyranny of being nice.

The fiends!

“There’s one thing I don’t understand here.If by some astounding miracle—one day,somehow and some place in a white society,it should happen,not matter how incredibley unlikely it may be,that an ethnic minority begins to diplay disproproportionate
levels of criminal activity,and no stone should be left unturned in finding the catalyst to that pandemic——what use are the defensive simplistic cliches that I have drawn attention to above.”

Tell me, do you know who your ancestors were? Roman, , Saxon, Norman, Viking, Celt? All white, and all fought each other tooth and nail.

Stalin and Hitler were white, and killed millions of people. Tell me, what excuse to you make for them. Perhaps some black guy fucked their girlfriend.

@journeyman

“Racist” is a good description of someone who believes that one ethnicity is superior to another, and that people of one ethnicity should be discriminated against because of this is it not?

I responded to the points made by winston the racist @16.

RE your points on crime – I would like you to explain why people from the white working class are significantly less likely from the rest of the population to do well at school and far more likely to commit all the crimes you mention. Could it be that these white people have defective skin and defective culture?

“you just mention ‘black’ on this blog and BNP sympathisers turn up.”

Can you tell if they came via Google Alerts?

It is inevitable that people will make assumptions about perceived risk (assumptions that might be right or incorrect, of course).

When I lived near Stamford Hill I never felt threatened by the Hasidic Jews (even though many lived in relative poverty).

When I was mugged at knife point (in Stoke Newington) it just happened to be by x3 black guys, although the area was populated by a fair quota of intimidating white chavs as well.

I was certainly wary of certain blokes in certain situations (black and white) – but not the law abiding Hasidics, no matter what time of day it was.

One’s religious belief is simply a choice, and therefore may be ridiculed, hated, treated with contempt or loved as much as one likes.

One’s race clearly is not. Therefore, to hate someone because of it is not only unpleasant, it’s insane.

What is undeniable is that a vastly disproportionate number of London’s black male youth, scorning free education and lacking basic skills, seek companionship in the violent embrace of the drug gangs.

Fifty-four per cent of robbery arrests from a twelve per cent segment of the population is a scandal and a continuing disgrace to that community.

The distinguished black US academic who coined the phrase “Gold chains not brains” knew exactly what he was talking about. Now we have the problem here.

What, other than furious denials and firmly closed eyes, are we going to do about it?

The Goldberg book is intellectually dishonest. He refers a couple of times to Gregor Strasser, the Nazi leader who thought the party should be a socialist movement. However, he doesn’t mention that Hitler expressly rejected Strasser’s ideas at a party conference and later had him shot.

I belive it it was Jesse Jackson the Black American batist Minister and civil rights activist who remarked:

“There have been times when I have found myself alone at night walking down some dimly lit street,and upon hearing foot steps fast approaching from behind me,I have turned my head and seen–feeling a sense of relief—that they were white.”

I think when one hears a Black man say things like this,rather than thinking “Ha-you see,I was right.´They’re all nothing but a bunch of criminals”.

Instead ,one is more inclined to feel respect for his courage in not being swayed by tribal loyalty from speaking his mind,and almost a sense of relief and hope that,if only a few more would exhibit such honesty,that perhaps the grim prospects that appear to linger on the horizon may somehow be avoided.
“The Emperors New Clothes ” story ,appears to be flying in the face of evidence.

Was Rod Liddle a right-winger when he wrote for the Guardian?

“While editor of the Today programme, Liddle wrote a column for The Guardian newspaper. On 25 September 2002, he titled his column “Marching back to Labour”: referring to a march organized by the Countryside Alliance in defence of fox hunting, Liddle wrote that readers may have forgotten why “you” voted Labour but would remember once they saw the people campaigning to save hunting.

The BBC considered that this breached his commitments to impartiality as an editor and gave Liddle an ultimatum to either stop writing his column or resign: he resigned on 30 September 2002.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Liddle

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2002/sep/25/broadcasting.ruralaffairs

Or does someone become a right-winger the moment he says something you find embarrassing?

I forgot to mention this above, but when I come across a title like “The supposed criminality of black people” I generally expect to come across an argument that this supposition is in correct, not a statement that it is apparently true.

“blacks seem to be over-represented among criminals”

[48] it’s not just Rod Liddle who has discussed this issue.

The likes of Chris Rock built an entire routine around it, albeit in an American context
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui6-Wc0PDc4

Like Neil and Sunny I am amazed how the ignorant racists find these threads and then swoop on them to have their silly, bigoted and vacuous ideas taken apart.

Chris Dillow was dicing with danger taking on this terrible myth utilised by racists, they don’t like to be questioned as it get’s them angry, confused and initiates trolling, sock puppets, impersonation and all kinds of backward Internet shenanigans.

Gosh! Having only recently stumbled on this nest of vipers, I thought I’d try to raise the level of language, but it seems a futile quest, given the vituperative reactions. ..still…how is it racist to praise black Africans for their countries’ superior grasp of decent moral standards? Or is it only criminal blacks who merit support from the likes of Hoffman and ‘Sally’ The Foulmouth?”
I judge people on their merits, which is the antithesis of racism, surely. If a black man is standing beside me at a bar, I’ll chat pleasantly with him, unless he’s obnoxious; same goes for a white man.
If I were hiring somebody for a job, I’d look at qualifications, yes, but also more widely at their character. Clearly no normal person would choose a white prospective employee who uses gutter language like Sally rather than a polite black person. Equally, if I needed a secretary, I’d pick a pretty girl, or even a plain one, over a pervert….or even over a man of otherwise reasonable standards. It is simply more pleasant to walk into the office and see a cutie rather than a bloke.
Hoffman of course would probably hire a perv and that’s up to him, but what I dislike about modern Britain is that I’d be prosecuted for choosing people I prefer.

This point was made in the OP, but those who wish to carry-on claiming that criminality is mainly associated with black people refuse to listen.-
Crime is more prevelant within the 16-22 age group – there is also a correlation with unemployment figures and that age group. There is also a correlation between class and unemployment and most young black men belong to the class who suffer most unemployment.. That age group are also more likely to be the victims of crime, and it is black people, not white, who are the victims of racially motivated crime.
@46 I doubt if Jesse Jackson would be afraid of his black doctor if he found himself in his surgery alone with him/her.

Blimey, you right-wingers really struggle with women swearing, don’t you? However, thanks for the demonstration of your ludicrous, Biblical views: either act ‘as befits a lady’, ie as dictated by y’all, or be designated a ‘dirty bore hole’. Way to signpost your vagina issues there, bubba!

Don’t worry though, I’m sure Sally’ll be afraid to return now you’ve *implied she’s ugly and unfeminine*, Ross. I expect she’s sitting in a crying heap wondering whether she’s really blown her chances with your no-doubt flawlessly handsome self.

PS “David Hasselhoff?” – inspired!