Dear Col and sock puppet gang,

What CJ and I have been trying to enlighten you all about is the rise of a modern form of racism in which the effects of racism are realised not
in the terms of explicit or manifest prejudice, but rather through a championing of so called ‘traditional values’ which then come to be asserted in an anti-minority manner.

This utilisation of your nationalist rhetoric is deployed to bolster those ideological values and traditions as your imagined majority.

Dagget, you need re-think what you think Jared Diamond is saying, he’s way off track! Materialistic /Darwinian/ Marxist racism is still racism

What seems to be occurring here is by no means an outright attack on ethnic minorities, but a rather more insidious process of disqualification in which ethnic and non whites come to be marginalized relative to the proliferation of discourse celebrating these so called norms and ideals of a privileged white majority.

CJ is right that Col is careful not to be corralled into the herd of ‘common’ racists. Oh no, his sense of British class status would not allow him to be placed with the ‘commoners’. This would not do!

What is fascinating for me is the unconscious (or conscience) construction of a type of plausible deniability of racism in political rhetoric, particularly in how discussion of how nationalist, historical imperial sentiments are deployed in ways which ‘affirms and celebrates a set of values and well-being of that no one here can really claim to in any real sense.

One would think that everyone here that employs this approach founded this country, invented all the technology, wrote the laws of the land and built its institutions from the ground up and then feel justified to defend on this basis this on their apparent ‘entitlement (read privilege) against the “”threat”” from outsiders.

Its always a never ending source of amusement for me to discover that those who are embracing the uncertainties of globalism are those most despised by those who hang on to those old western narratives bout statehood and ethno- nationalism

(on behalf of daggett):

CJ Morgan,

When do you intend to move beyond your resort to personal attacks and begin to discuss the substantial questions raised on this forum?

If poverty causes crime, my dear Wizofaust, then crime must have been right out of control in Australia during The Great Depression. But my copy of “Rising Crime in Australia” (Centre for Independent Studies, author Lucy Clark) testifies that crime in Australia was at its lowest when Australians were at our poorest.

Similarly, the poorest regions of Australia are the depressed rural areas. Surprise, surprise, these are also the regions with the lowest crime rates. Despite firearm ownership being very common, most country towns have never had an armed robbery in their entire history.

Great Britain in 1900 had very real areas of severe poverty. Rather perversely, it also had the lowest homicide rate ever recorded for an industrialized society (1.2 per 100,000). Britain was so safe that, much to the astonishment of the rest of the world, police in Britain had no need to carry firearms. But in multicultural Britain, that is now changing with the Nottinghamshire Police being the first to arm general duties constables with handguns.

Two poor areas of the USA display an interesting contrast. The first is Washington DC, where in 1993 there was a complete breakdown in law and order. DC also has the country's strictest gun control, highest police costs per capita, highest ratio of police and correctional officers per citizen, and highest rate of incarceration.

Another poor area is West Virginia, which has the nation's lowest crime rate, almost non existent gun laws, and has the highest unemployment in the U.S. It also has the fewest police per capita.

The difference is that DC is 80% black and West Virginia 96% white.

I don’t know if you read up on Criminology, but even left wing criminologists refrain from claiming that poverty causes crime anymore, because they know that that premise can be disproved.

Its back to the drawing board for you, I’m afraid Mr Wizofaust/Nichols.

Could I submit that poor people in wealthy communities are generally not real bright? In other words Wizofaust, they are criminals because they are dumb, and poor because they are dumb.

"Ginx,

Before I answer the question you have put to me, could you tell me specifically what you object to in any of my posts in this forum?"
Posted by daggett, Tuesday, 16 October 2007 1:09:53 AM

___________

You mean you cannot answer unless you ask a question of me? Tsk!Tsk!

(I would have got back to you sooner Mr Sinnamon? but the technoguard told me I could not.)

I am more than happy to tell you what I object to in your posts. It is assessing which ARE your posts. I am GENUINELY confused.

You have conducted yourself doggedly and very calmly in your discussions on your threads, particularly with one particular poster who appeared to 'shadow' your statements and consistently disagree with them. (I consider it perfectly valid for me to question that now.)

Your response style now has completely changed to a more aggressive confrontative style (yes, I AM familiar with that style!), AND others?? now post for you!

SO...; from someone eloquent and self-assured in his beliefs, you have metamorphosed, and even have to call on others to post for you..?

Not knowing who one is addressing HAS caused problems on OLO.

That DOES answer your question; will you now answer mine?

_________________________________________________

"Could I submit that poor people in wealthy communities are generally not real bright? In other words Wizofaust, they are criminals because they are dumb, and poor because they are dumb."
Posted by redneck, Tuesday, 16 October 2007 7:27:08 PM

...............they can't be that dumb if they are in wealthy communities, can they? Not as dumb as those who judge them.....

redneck,

I have to also disagree. Whilst it is wrong to completely discount a link between ethnicity and race, it is also wrong to use the statistics in the way you have in order to 'prove' that black people in the US are inherently more criminally inclined. That a more culturally homogeneous and stable Australia coped with the poverty of the depression better than blacks appear to be now in the US shold not be used to automatically discount poverty as a cause of black crime.

The globalisation process of past decades has hurt blacks particularly hard. Many of the well-paid unionised industrial jobs that blacks used to hold in the US have been exported to third world slave wage economies (as they have in this country). On top of that now they have to face the problems of a massive entry of immigrants, both legal and illegal, who are competing with them for the remaining jobs.

This is not to say that black crime in the US should be excused or not discussed, but we should open our minds to the possibility that if the harmful economic 'reforms' of previous decades were to be reversed and immigration to be brought back under control, the situation might become quite different.

Mr Daggert, there is nothing wrong with using facts and statistics to support a premise. It is only wrong if I deliberately manufacture lies, embellish the truth, or misuse statistical analysis to present a false picture.

I once held the same views as you do, and even screamed abuse at the Springboks as ‘racists”. But I like to know my subjects that I endorse, and I will always do a little research instead of just parrotting fashionable slogans. Also, I have a heretical nature and tend to question established orthodoxy. My research into the subject of racism led me to acknowledge that the minorities we were defending against racism were just as racist as we were. If a white person in the USA is 60 times more likely to be assaulted or raped by a black than the other way around, which race is more deserving of criticism for its racism?

In addition, the arguments put forward by white activists to explain black dysfunction were always “blame the white man for everything.”

That sure looks like racism to me.

Whereas I recognize that most peope pushing the anti racist line are young, idealistic, and well meaning, the leaders who herd them along the path of true PC righteousness have arguments which always boil down to this.

1. White people are always wrong, and dark skinned people are always right.

2. Anything that goes wrong in a darker skinned people’s society is always the fault of white people.

3. Not only are white people always wrong, they are especially wrong if they are Americans.

4. Whatever injustices occur in white society must be pointed out and savagely attacked, but if darker skinned societies are riven with the foulest injustices and human rights violations, it is impolite to point these out.

5. The cultures of dark skinned people must be protected, while the cultures of white Prots must be destroyed.

6. White people are always the oppressors, and dark skinned people are always the victims.