Black Gangs Vented Hatred For Whites In Downtown Denver

Post Reply New Topic

@ ascan - you get back to me about the planned economy and i'll respond to you

@asper - no it's a question of balance; i'm not trying to justify any criminality nor do i have to - you are the one pointing the finger at this or that race being violent and criminal - if a race is predisposed to criminality (and have a greater disposition toward) because of some geneticalyy based characteristics of that race then we should be able to raise that into a general law and apply it to see how it holds (afterall, these genes haven't simply erupted into the human genome in the past 30-40 years have they??): was their a genetic basis for the conquistador pillage of central america? or for white europeans in general and the British very much in particular to drag something between 10-30 million people across the atlantic, force them to labour, rape their wives and daughters, beat the men, kill them if they saw fit, trade them if they saw fit? was there a genetic basis for the british to kill Punjabs, Hindis? was there a genetic basis for Nazis to slaughter 6 million+ Jews, Roma, Communists and disabled people? What about the Italian Mafia/Cosa Nostra in the US? Or the IRA in the British Isles?
Surely, if there is a genetic basis for violence and criminality, we should be looking to the massive crimes of human history to examine this, we should be looking to those big explosions of violence to study this, we should, you must agree, look to the largest growths of criminality and violence to fully evidence this claim?
Or was it that the conquistadors killed for gold to take back to spain (socio-economics)? Or was it that it made some people rich to trade in and to utilise slaves (socioeconomics)? Or was it in order to seize control of India and the immense wealth of those lands, making Britain the wealthiest, mst powerful nation of the era and her capitalists equally so (socioeconomics)? Or was it because the Nazis needed a scapegoat for the abject failure of their economic policies (socioeconomics), policies which had driven Germany into possibly one of the most disastrous conflicts in all human history - for all sides involved? Was it that Italian migrants fully embraced anglo-american capitalism, of property, pursuit of profit, protection of markets, monopolisation in order to climb out of the migrant poverty that gripped the East Coast cities (socioeconomics)? Was it that the Irish Republicans wanted to exercise the right to self-determination and shake of the hand of British Imperialism (socio.....economics)?

it is YOU who is not grasping the point - I'm not, nor have I ever, accused White Europeans of being any more or less violent than anyone else - i'm looking to the causes of that violence, what purpose that violence serves - it is a rule that can be applied to any group of human beings, that they are formed and driven by their material conditions, that to understand human action on the scale we are talking about - from petty theft to pogroms - to claim a genetic, and therefore a racial, basis for these actions is at its best reductionist to the point of absurdity. in the words of the Clinton campaign: IT'S THE ECONOMY......

emotional response and name calling? evidence this and i'll address it.
trying to justify the crimes of others? evidence it
contradicting myself? EVIDENCE IT
racist, moi? E.V.I.D.E.N.C.E.

Really, really important point.

Most (if not all) differences in statistics can be correlated to differences in life experience, opportunity, and living conditions.

I thought you'd lost interest in that discussion.


The point is that young black males carry out a disproportionate amount of violent crime compared to Europeans or Asians. You need to account for why that is. As I've pointed out, individuals with higher testosterone levels are more likely to be involved in violent crime. See this link or this link. In addition, black (as in US Afro-Caribbean who originally came from one part of sub-Saharan Africa) males have higher testosterone levels than Europeans. See this link. The links are to reputable non-political sources and so I suggest that this is a reasonable line of investigation to follow.

nope

just waiting for you to respond on the planned economy. like i said - that first before continuing onto anything else.

All I ever said was that crime among blacks and mestizos is more predominantly than in whites(unfortunately this is the truth and you people deny it) and that a great number of people deny this(obviously you happen to fall into this category).

Not once did I mentioned what causes blacks and mestizos to commit more crimes than whites.
You called me racist before I was even able to voice my opinion on the cause.


Now...
Economic instability can cause certain groups to become more violent and criminal(we agree on this) but what causes these groups to be victims of this economic instability?
That is the question I've been trying to answer, and all I have now is theories, I don't claim to know what causes it.

Ascan has a very nice point.
IQ scores could also serve as proof.
Religious ideas, history, indoctrination, genetics and many other small details can serve as an indicator.
I still don't know how much does race has to do with this.

The solution though, I personally think that it's not just that blacks have to change but whites have to change too and stop letting crime get out of hand.
Whites of the Western world have been taught to feel guilty for slavery and be scared of the black man.
Yet, the era of white guilt is ending, we are seeing how white people realize that the Obama supporters use the issue of race to discredit criticism, we see how white people are "tired" of getting the race card pulled at them. And they are also realizing how the "anti-Semitic" label is also a dirty trick(we saw this not long ago between Ben Stein and Ron Paul and we see it pretty much every time Israel or Zionism is discredited).

Note:
(A considerable amount of both of these groups, blacks and Jews have racist ideologies, great majority of blacks supported Obama just for being black, Jews think they are "the chosen race" and see others as cattle, like their Talmud talks about us non-Jews... Address that and you will certainly be called a racist).

It is certainly true that conflict and violence have been a constant throughout history. In light of this, it is quite difficult to draw conclusions from events in world history about whether or not different races differ in their propensities for violence. In contrast, when you have different races living in the same society at the same time, subject to the same laws, it is easier to compare - and when they display differing crime rates even when you adjust for economic factors, it is safer to conclude that sociobiology plays a part. (Or to put it another way, it would seem from the data that some non-Whites are not that well biologically adapted to live in societies that Whites have created – and why on earth should they be?)

(I might add that even if it is nothing to do with sociobiology and everything to do with economics, history or “culture”, I would conclude [after looking at the statistics and at the story I opened this thread with] that on practical grounds I [as a white person living in a Western society] would be better off avoiding heavily black areas, and that the increasingly multiracial aspect of the society I live in is not necessarily something I want to celebrate, even though the media and politicians tell me I should.)

But I do agree that ‘socioeconomics’ influences human behaviour.

Btw, I still view your reading of the origins of World War II as quite bizarre. My understanding is that the Nazis discriminated against Jews as soon as they came to power, because they viewed the Jews as an alien race (sociobiology!) who had helped cause Germany’s defeat during WWI and who had since that time been promoting decadence and Communist subversion. From what I’ve read these were not entirely baseless accusations (although some court historians will tell you they were). Anyway, after the Nazis took over, the economy picked up dramatically, and the quality of life for the average German improved (even if it declined for the average Jew).
The war itself started over a dispute over Danzig, a city that had been taken from Germany and given to Poland after the Treaty of Versailles. Poland refused to co-operate with Germany after Britain had given Poland a worthless war guarantee. War broke out, and the Germany found herself occupying a vast area of land populated by (among others) a particular race they viewed as their enemy. Hence – the concentration camps.

I would be interested in hearing where you heard that the Nazis starting WWII because they needed French gold for their declining economy (have I remembered correctly?)
I admit I've never heard that explanation before, so I suppose I had better check it out.

Last edited by codarac on 10 Jan 2010, 7:57 am, edited 2 times in total.

And do you admit that statistics can be used and slanted to make any point? If you look at those same figures, absent any racial data, you will find that most crimes are committed by those marginalized in society with limited finances no matter their racial background. You seem attached to looking at your numbers from a perspective that inherently has a bias towards different races due to their historical disadvantages. Yes, racism is alive and well from all angles - people of all colors and faiths disparaging and stereotyping others to make themselves feel better. That doesn't make it acceptable.


M.

Had you any particular model in mind, TLC? Burma, maybe... or perhaps Cuba or North Korea?

@ Asper:

Regardless of what that 12% contains, the fact remains that if I'm walking home alone at night, and there's a white guy walking towards me on one side of the street and a black guy walking towards me on the other side of the street, I'm statistically vastly safer if I cross over to the same side as the black guy.

P.S: Check out The Mismeasure of Man by Steven J. Gould for the origin of all of these arguments.

@ asper-

no I don't deny it, what I deny is that there is something particular to these groups with a racial basis that would predispose them to criminality - the point is that in the US particularly, but also in Canada and Europe in general, people of non-white backgrounds have a greater tendency to be in the poorest socio-economic groups as a proportion of their population. In other words per head of population non-whites have a larger proportion of people living below the pverty line and, consequently, tend toward breaking the law particularly around theft, violent crime and drugs as a result of this. To say african-americans and latinos commit more crime than whites then leave it at the point of putting up a racial differentiation skews the issue before questions are even asked as to why.



It wasn't necessary for you to do so - you already telegraphed that one when you made the pathetic attempt to support the outright lie regarding inter-racial rape.

@codarac -


the point is they haven't been treat as equals subject to the same laws



show me the study that evidences this and i'll consider the point

-Germany and WW2

right, here we are for starters:

Wages drop - According to the Reich Statistical Office, they [=wages] declined for skilled workers from 20.4 cents an hour in 1932, at the height of the depression, to 19.5 cents during the middle of 1936. Wage scales for unskilled labor fell from 16.1 cents to 13 cents an hour. (William Shirer: The Rise and Fall Of the Third Reich". p. 233)

consumer prices rise - "A summary of price and wage levels prepared for Hitler on 4 September 1935 showed almost half of the German work-force earning gross wages of 18 ReichMarks or less per week. This was substantially below the poverty line...Wages, then, remained at the 1932 level--substantially lower than the last pre-Depression year of 1928 in the much-maligned Weimar Republic. Food prices, on the other hand, had risen officially by 8 per cent since 1933. Overall living costs were higher by 5.4 per cent. Official rates did not, however, tell the whole tale. Increases of 33, 50, and even 150 per cent had been reported for some foodstuffs. By late summer, the terms `food crisis' and `provisions crisis' were in common use.....wheat went up 15 percent, eggs 50 percent, butter 40 percent, potatoes 75 percent, and most meat 50 percent--all despite "official" and ineffectual price controls which Hitler for appearances' sake refused to lift. Well into Hitler's "miracle," Kershaw notes, "poor living-standards, falling real wages, and steep price increases in some necessities...[were] the dismal reality behind the `fine facade of the Third Reich.'"
"
economic roots of the war - At the same time, a ferocious eco-nomic policy battle was being waged over foreign exchange reserves: Should they be used to buy food imports or raw materials for armament production, the latter being Hitler's primary purpose since he first took office? Hitler appointed Hermann Göring (who knew less about economics than Hitler) to mediate between Economics Minister Hjalmar Schacht, who wanted to purchase raw materials for armaments, and Agriculture Minister Walther Darre, who wanted food to cover up his failed policies. Schacht, a social friend of Göring's, expected a rubber stamp in favor of raw materials for arms. To everyone's surprise, except Hitler's, Göring chose food, an answer that set Germany on the road to foreign conquest.

As Kershaw sees it, Hitler gave priority to food imports because the "immediate prime need was to avoid the damaging psychological effects of the only alternative: food rationing." But this decision, in turn, adversely affected German rearmament. "By early 1936," says Kershaw, "available supplies of raw materials for rearmament had shrunk to a precariously low level. Only one to two month supplies were left. Schacht demanded a slow down in the pace of rearmament....As Hitler entered his fourth year as Chancellor, the economic situation posed a real threat to rearmament plans. At the very time when international developments encouraged the most rapid expansion possible, the food crisis--and the social unrest in its turn--was sharply applying the brakes to it....Any slow down in rearmament...would inevitably bring increased unemployment in its train...[Hitler] saw this as all the more reason to hasten expansion to gain `living-space.'"

In other words, if Hitler had to spend foreign exchange reserves for food to keep the people happy, he would have to get the raw materials for armaments by taking them. Otherwise, there would be more unemployment when the arms workers were laid off due to a lack of raw materials. Hitler knew he couldn't survive both food shortages and a resurgence of unemployment.

lack of gold - Hitler paid for his economic "miracle" partly by depleting his nation's gold reserves, which he used to import critical raw materials for the manufacture of weapons. When he took office, the Reichbank had reserves totaling 937 million ReichMarks; four years later, that figure was down to only 72 million ReichMarks. Massive government borrowing financed the rest of the government-driven economy. As Roberts put it, "The Nazi state is being financed by short-term [90 day] loans--up to 15 billion Reichmarks by the end of 1936....In short, Germany is going round and round. She can get nowhere until she returns to normal economic conditions, but she is afraid to try and get back to those, because she fears economic collapse and social upheaval if she does so."

Kershaw makes the same point and suggests that it was this fear of social unrest, heightened by serious food shortages in Germany during the fall of 1935--themselves largely the result of government policies--that played the major role in Hitler's decision to reoccupy the Rhineland in March 1936.

(Reason Magazine)

http://www.reason.com/news/show/31084.html



what's that Skip? Germany used up most of its gold reserves?



yes, yes, i know you can be facetious - the question is can you maintain a position? first page first post, I believe, of the FAO Ascan thread. The planned economy. Your response.

You have mentioned that certain non-white groups(specifically blacks and mestizos in the US's case) have high crime rates among themselves.
Then...
You go on to say that they are more likely to fall into poverty(I agree with you, this is the evident truth).
Now...
Why is it that these non-white people have a greater tendency to fall in poverty?
That is the question we have to answer.

Regarding the book, and the topic of race and human behavior.
I've not yet come to conclusions as to what side is right.
The real question we should be focusing on, and I just made it in my previous post, is WHY these non-white groups have more chances of falling into poverty.


Apart from that.
The conclusions you drew from the 88% statistical figures does not determine your choice to be in accordance with the outcome you think it will produce(have the same chances of being a victim of rape if you would encounter either a black or white male when walking at night).
You still need to know the other 12%(interracial rape rates... The "about evenly divided" relates to the number of blacks and whites victims of rape, this is not the 12% figure).
Yet.
This "about evenly divided" is not only vague but completely false.

According to the US department of justice.
There were 111,490 white and 36,620 black victims of rape or sexual assault reported in 2005. Out of the 111,490 cases involving white victims, 44.5% (49,613) had white offenders and 33.6% (37,461) had black offenders, while the 36,620 black victims had a figure of 100% black offenders, with a 0.0% estimation for any other race based on ten or fewer sample cases.

Statistically in 2005, blacks raped more whites than blacks. Blacks raped 74081 victims while whites raped 49613.

I categorically have not said they are more likely to fall into poverty - way to twist my words to suit yourself. They are born into it for crying out loud - african americans especially have been an underclass in the US since they were dragged there in chains - at every turn they've been beaten down by the North Amreican capacity for racism.



can you link to this source so we can assess it ourselves? NCVS or UCR? reported, arrested or convicted?

The current, actual DOJ numbers do not jibe with your statement.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1975

As a woman, I am most at risk from those whom I know; as a white woman, I am most at risk from white attackers. In an individual, one-on-one choice between the side of the street with the black man and the side of the street with the white man, I am not interested in overall numbers; I am interested in probability. My probability of being safest remains on the side of the street with the black man.

Furthermore, your conclusion is belied on a large scale by demographic evidence; overall crime, including rape and violent crime, has fallen dramatically in the last decades even as the proportion of the population made up by blacks and other minorities has increased dramatically.

here are some more:

http://sbi2.jus.state.nc.us/crp/public/ ... Anal02.htm

http://www.springerlink.com/content/a30xg110610g7233/

http://pages.swcp.com/nmcsap/statistics.html#cd