White racial violence problem?

[Moonlight Graham]

Yes we are violent, best if you don't piss us off then I guess.

Man, I like this guy! At least you're honest.

Edited May 23, 2015 by Moonlight Graham

[H10]

Please show me the evidence to prove the above statement is true, because I know you just pulled it out of your wazoo.

This is one of the most ridiculous claims I've read on these forums in a long time.

I already answered it in this thread, several posts back.

See stats a posted multiple times on the first page and on the page above your quotes.

You didn't answer why whites are so violent and still haven't you just troll my thread trying to convince whites have lower crime rates. Even if it were true, you are still dodging the question why do they commit the crimes?

[Freddy]

Man, I like this guy! At least you're honest.

I'm done with feeling ashamed for being exactly what Nature intended me to be.

Edited May 23, 2015 by Freddy

[Argus]

Uk and France have far more rapers than Africa because when people rape in africa they give them death sentences or if they are rebels the military hunts them down and blows their heads off.

http://www.unisa.ac.za/news/index.php/2013/02/south-africa-the-worlds-rape-capital/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/18/africa-child-rape-crisis_n_3103558.html

http://www.rainbo.org/the-epidemic-of-violence-against-women-in-africa/

http://www.iol.co.za/news/africa/group-tackles-uganda-rape-epidemic-1.1855025#.VWCFP0YYPD4

[Je suis Omar]

Would you support Nazi Germany if they promised to get rid of the United States for you?

No, I most certainly would not, bcsapper. My posts have, numerous times, indicated that I believe that the rule of law should be followed.

But you have stated, correct me if I'm wrong, that you support the USA in their war crimes and terrorism.

[Je suis Omar]

Freddy, on 22 May 2015 - 10:25 PM, said:

Yes we are violent, best if you don't piss us off then I guess.

Man, I like this guy! At least you're honest.

Freddy is that, "honest", Graham.

When asked,

"Would you then volunteer, or accept being conscripted into a USA death squad?"

he answered, Yes, absolutely.

[Guest]

No, I most certainly would not, bcsapper. My posts have, numerous times, indicated that I believe that the rule of law should be followed.

But you have stated, correct me if I'm wrong, that you support the USA in their war crimes and terrorism.

Neither would I. But then, my question was more to indicate how ridiculous your question was, than to garner an actual answer.

As to the United States, I do not support war crimes and terrorism. I do support the United States, however, and am thankful that they became the number one superpower in the world instead of some of the other candidates. (I would have preferred the UK, but their time is past. At least we speak the same language) That's not to whitewash the past of course. I've been watching the news for 50 years. Just to say the alternate future would almost certainly have been worse.

I support them in doing whatever they feel needs to be done to protect themselves and other members of NATO, as well as any other Allies who might not be members of NATO. I understand that said actions do not come without a cost in innocent lives, which is unfortunate. I also believe that the US genuinely wants to keep that cost down. As opposed to their enemies, who want to use it as a strategy.

Now, before you go emptying your hard drive on me, understand this. Like your obsession with 9/11, your hatred of the US consumes you to the extent that you will believe anything and anyone who has anything bad to say about them. The only argument to the plethora of articles that you can post on the subject is to research the incidents individually and try to find alternate versions of events and/or mitigating factors. Which I am not willing to do. This post is already a record length for me, I think.

Edited May 23, 2015 by bcsapper

[Je suis Omar]

Neither would I. But then, my question was more to indicate how ridiculous your question was, than to garner an actual answer.

A lame response, BCS. The simple fact is that you do support war crimes and terrorism committed by the USA. You support "yes, absolutely, I would join a USA death squad" Freddy.

As to the United States, I do not support war crimes and terrorism. I do support the United States, however, and am thankful that they became the number one superpower in the world instead of some of the other candidates. (I would have preferred the UK, but their time is past. At least we speak the same language) That's not to whitewash the past of course. I've been watching the news for 50 years. Just to say the alternate future would almost certainly have been worse.

You state that you don't support war crimes and terrorism then you write at length how you support war crimes and terrorism because they are your chosen war crimes and terrorism crew.

I support them in doing whatever they feel needs to be done to protect themselves and other members of NATO, as well as any other Allies who might not be members of NATO. I understand that said actions do not come without a cost in innocent lives, which is unfortunate. I also believe that the US genuinely wants to keep that cost down. As opposed to their enemies, who want to use it as a strategy.

You so desperately want to believe that nonsense that you are adamantly and totally opposed to finding out the truth.

[Je suis Omar]

I've been watching the news for 50 years.

That's hardly evidence that you are an informed individual.

The USA knew that the vast majority of Vietnamese wanted independence with Ho Chi Minh as their leader. Instead of aiding them in that endeavour, as Ho Chi Minh repeatedly asked and begged the USA to do, the USA lied lied lied and launched a long long series of vicious war crimes against Vietnam and its people.

On my first trip to Hanoi I was intrigued by the following familiar words on a plaque in the Museum of History:

All men are created equal. They are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It was with these words that Ho Chi Minh had proclaimed the Democratic Republic of Vietnam on September 2, 1945. Standing on a hastily-erected wooden platform opposite the French Governor-General's palace and with the flag of the new republic above him, Ho had gone on to acknowledge the source of 'these immortal words', as he described them. They were taken, he had told the crowd,

from the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America in 1776. In a larger sense, this means that all the people on earth are born equal; all the people have the right to live, to be happy, to be free.

In the crowd had been a group of American officers, led by Major Archimedes L. A. Patti of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the forerunner of the Central Intelligence Agency. Major Patti's work as a US government 'liaison officer' in Hanoi during the summer of 1945 represented the first direct American involvement in Indo-China. He remains one of the crucial witnesses to and participants in the war's gestation period and was for many years the keeper of its early secrets. It was not until 1980 that Major Patti's book Why Viet Nam? Prelude to America's Albatross was published, even though the manuscript of his story was ready in 1954. McCarthyism had taken hold in America and he was threatened with 'disciplinary action' if he disclosed what had happened during his time in Vietnam.

When we met in Los Angeles in 1983 Major Patti described the 'extraordinary pro-American spirit that was everywhere at the birth of Ho Chi Minh's Vietnam'. 'They didn't regard America as an imperial power,' he said. 'They thought we were different from the Europeans and they were desperate not to be associated with international communism, not with the Chinese or the Russians, but with us in America. What an opportunity it was. I remember when Ho Chi Minh called for me and said he was drafting Vietnam's declaration of independence. He asked if I could remember how the American text went and said, "The same declaration is appropriate because Americans and Vietnamese believe in the same anti-colonialism." Well, that was fine, but my problem was that I couldn't remember it word for word!'

The ironies then multiplied. Also in Hanoi that day was the French Commissioner for Indo-China, Jean Saintenay, who was to accuse Patti and the United States government of 'infantile anti-colonialism', and of endorsing 'this communist takeover of Indochina'. The French bitterness was understandable; not only had they been humbled in their own colony as quislings of the Japanese, but now the Americans, the liberators of Paris, had arrived to help not them but the Vietnamese nationalists, the Vietminh, who were led by a communist called Ho Chi Minh. Moreover, President Roosevelt had already vilified France which, he said, had 'milked' Vietnam for a hundred years. 'The people of IndoChina are entitled to something better,' the President had said, and the United States supported their 'independence and self-determination'.

Ho Chi Minh liked Americans. He told his friend Wilfred Burchett, the Australian journalist, that he enjoyed 'the openness of Americans . . . the way they get things done. They didn't seem [in 1945] to be prisoners of the past, not like the French.' Ho perhaps had a personal reason to like Americans. In June 1945 Life magazine published a family album-style picture of members of an American OSS team who had parachuted behind Japanese lines to supply the Vietminh. In the centre was Ho Chi Minh; on his left was a young American holding a pith helmet, Paul Hoagland, who had found the Vietminh leader seriously ill and had nursed him with sulphur drugs and quinine and, as Ho himself later acknowledged, had saved his life.

Ho Chi Minh was the antithesis of other emerging communist leaders in one respect: he wanted his people to open themselves out to other societies, communist, capitalist and non-aligned. Like Tito in Yugoslavia, he knew that this was the only way his people could survive as a national entity. Indeed, so anxious was Ho for American support for his fledgling republic that he addressed twelve separate appeals to President Roosevelt, to his Secretary of State, Cordell Hull, and to the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee. Major Patti later wrote that Ho 'pleaded not for military or economic aid',

. . . but for understanding, for moral support, for a voice in the forum of western democracies. But the United States would not read his mail because, as I was informed, the DRV Government was not recognised by the United States and it would be 'improper' for the President or anyone in authority to acknowledge such correspondence. [DRV stood for Democratic Republic of Vietnam, later known colloquially by the Americans as 'North Vietnam'.]

Ho Chi Minh saw America's post-Second World War strength as a counterweight to China and went so far as to propose that Vietnam should be part of an 'American Commonwealth' in Asia with a trusteeship status similar to that of the Philippines. That the Philippines then was effectively an American colony apparently did not concern him; for this was an expedient. Unless Vietnam survived in the shadow of the most populous nation, independence would never be realised.

As for relations with the Soviet Union, Ho spent fifteen years in Moscow and expressed himself well aware of the tenuous and highly conditional nature of Soviet 'friendship'. He told Patti, 'I place more reliance on the United States to support Vietnam's independence, before I could expect help from the USSR.'

READ ON AT,

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Pilger_John/Vietnam_Heroes.html

[Guest]

That's hardly evidence that you are an informed individual.

Nevertheless...

[Je suis Omar]

Nevertheless...

Nevertheless, just a cursory read of a few articles written by academics and former USA officials who grew disillusioned with USA war crimes and terrorism would bring you far closer to reality than your 50 years of news watching has done.

In all that 50 years have you heard of the 100 years of USA terrorism against Cuba, the 50 plus years of the same against Korea, or Vietnam, or Nicaragua.

These weren't USA enemies. These were countries that wanted their independence, the freedom to choose their own government, the freedom to use their own wealth.

The USA murdered millions, it should be obvious that you don't murder those you purport to be saving, in order to steal the wealth from these poor countries.

TV failed to inform you of that. What it has done, shamelessly, is provide the USA great cover for its myriad war crimes and terrorism.

This grand reluctance to address head on the volumes of information available to support all this doesn't at all speak well of your much vaunted freedom of speech, our free and open societies.

Edited May 23, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Moonlight Graham]

You didn't answer why whites are so violent and still haven't you just troll my thread trying to convince whites have lower crime rates. Even if it were true, you are still dodging the question why do they commit the crimes?

People who disagree you using evidence aren't "trolling".

This was my answer to you a few pages back as to why "white are so violent". Just because you don't accept the answer doesn't mean I didn't answer the question:

"Human men are violent. Western culture, especially in the US, also has a gun culture, so that contributes to the violence, compared to countries like Japan or South Korea that has vastly lower rates of gun violence. There's also more of a machismo culture in the West than in Japan or South Korea, where also men [in the West] aren't socially allowed to show "feelings" or weakness. Just my 2 cents."

[Moonlight Graham]

I'm done with feeling ashamed for being exactly what Nature intended me to be.

Have you read Friedrich Nietzsche? You'd probably really like his philosophies.

[H10]

http://www.unisa.ac.za/news/index.php/2013/02/south-africa-the-worlds-rape-capital/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/18/africa-child-rape-crisis_n_3103558.html

http://www.rainbo.org/the-epidemic-of-violence-against-women-in-africa/

http://www.iol.co.za/news/africa/group-tackles-uganda-rape-epidemic-1.1855025#.VWCFP0YYPD4

Stop trying to dodge the original question, why are whites so violent

[H10]

People who disagree you using evidence aren't "trolling".

This was my answer to you a few pages back as to why "white are so violent". Just because you don't accept the answer doesn't mean I didn't answer the question:

"Human men are violent. Western culture, especially in the US, also has a gun culture, so that contributes to the violence, compared to countries like Japan or South Korea that has vastly lower rates of gun violence. There's also more of a machismo culture in the West than in Japan or South Korea, where also men [in the West] aren't socially allowed to show "feelings" or weakness. Just my 2 cents."

Its trolling when you don't answer the question and try to change the topic constantly.

[Moonlight Graham]

Its trolling when you don't answer the question and try to change the topic constantly.

[Charles Anthony]

Move on, guys.

[-1=e^ipi]

And if so what is the root cause of this problem?

There is rarely a single root cause to a problem.

Why does there appear to be a pattern of white people and white police targeting Asians, hispanics, native indian, indian and blacks like this?

I think you should stop and ask yourself if confirmation bias has anything to do with this perception. Perhaps there appears to be a pattern because you start with a belief and then look for evidence to fit that belief. Or perhaps there is a pattern, but it is not as large as perceived and is amplified by confirmation bias. Many of your examples are 50+ years old; why did you have to look so far in time to find a sufficient number of examples?

And what of the white women and men who refuse to indict or convict white men who are seemingly guilty of these types of crimes?

They should be prosecuted for misconduct.

How come we don't talk more about white racial violence when there are so many examples of it like the ones listed above. In Canada, whites are convicted of over 67% of all crimes

Shouldn't you look at crime rates on a per-capita basis?

While black Canadians form just 5% of the population they are targeted for 42% of all hate crimes.

To be fair, I think that in our politically correct society, many, maybe even the majority, would view that hate crimes against whites simply can't exist by definition. Much like how many view that men cannot be raped by definition (the USA excludes forced penetration from the definition of rape) and as a result the rape statistics are skewed. I'm not saying black Canadians aren't disproportionately the victims of hate crimes, but you should be a bit skeptical.

Of the countries with the 4 highest amounts of criminals sitting in prison, convicted by a jury of their own peers. 3 of the four are white majority. (USA, BRAZIL, RUSSIA, AND CHINA). And in the top ten 7 of 10 are caucasian majority countries according to us census standards.

Two things to consider: 1. You should like at criminals per capita, otherwise the countries that appear high on the list will generally be countries with very large populations. 2. Some countries tend to have worse rule of law so criminals are more likely to get away with crime and less likely to be imprisoned.

Also, with respect to Swedish rape rates, Sweden used to have a very low rape rate until they started mass immigration from Muslim majority countries.

Btw, I think Freddy is trolling this thread.

Edited May 24, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[cybercoma]

Because we're richer & more economically developed, we have far more stable and inclusive governments, we have rule of law, people are far less oppressed etc. In short, white western countries (and a small handful of east Asian countries) are more civilized, and they maintain their dominance.

This is not a reason. This is a tautology.

[H10]

There is rarely a single root cause to a problem.

I think you should stop and ask yourself if confirmation bias has anything to do with this perception. Perhaps there appears to be a pattern because you start with a belief and then look for evidence to fit that belief. Or perhaps there is a pattern, but it is not as large as perceived and is amplified by confirmation bias. Many of your examples are 50+ years old; why did you have to look so far in time to find a sufficient number of examples?

They should be prosecuted for misconduct.

Shouldn't you look at crime rates on a per-capita basis?

To be fair, I think that in our politically correct society, many, maybe even the majority, would view that hate crimes against whites simply can't exist by definition. Much like how many view that men cannot be raped by definition (the USA excludes forced penetration from the definition of rape) and as a result the rape statistics are skewed. I'm not saying black Canadians aren't disproportionately the victims of hate crimes, but you should be a bit skeptical.

Two things to consider: 1. You should like at criminals per capita, otherwise the countries that appear high on the list will generally be countries with very large populations. 2. Some countries tend to have worse rule of law so criminals are more likely to get away with crime and less likely to be imprisoned.

Also, with respect to Swedish rape rates, Sweden used to have a very low rape rate until they started mass immigration from Muslim majority countries.

Btw, I think Freddy is trolling this thread.

If there are multiple causes of white violence, then I'd like to know what they are. There could be confirmation bias, but if you see a pattern wouldn't that also confirm a bias/view? I went back 50+ years to show that there was a long lasting pattern its not a new development. I did supply 3 links from the CDC, showing that whites have on average higher crime rates than blacks in america (equal assault, higher drug use and dealing, higher alcohol abuse and sexually assault and higher rates of gun carriage) etc. I showed whites where 62% of the population but 70% of the arrest in USA. In canada its the same situation. Whites have higher dispropotionate rates of crime, because the stats show based on how often they are stopped by cops they have hgiher criminality. And its not like white countries on average have the biggest populations. Only really USA, Brazil and russia have over 100 million people. Whites have high crime per capita. As for point 2, this is true of white countries, countries like usa and russia let alot of white criminals off the hook for being white and rich and well connected and crony and neopotism. The white kid with affluenza was the perfect case. Killed about 7 people harmed another 3 badly, yet gets a slap on the wrist and won't even have a criminal record. Yet a black woman who hit a white man who was drunk in the street at night by accident but left the scene got 50 years (the white guy left the scene too!) And black kids are tried as adult all the time when whites are tried as children for murders. There is no better example of a corrupt legal system than usa and the western nations.

Just look at the innocence project. 70% of exonerees are not white. Blacks are 38% of the prison population but 63% of all exoneerees. Whites are 40% of the prison population and 30% of exonerees. I feel I am way off my original point, it was never meant to be a comparison of whites and anyone, but simply why white crimes occur (we have other threads on black, hispanic, asian etc.), so I found it weird in a country where 67% of criminals are white we ignore the biggest group.

And plenty of countries like australia and new zealand have high rate rapes with majority white. Julian assange is white. Not to mention most of the pedophiles and pedophile priest are white, aka stereotypical pedo in sea or brazil is a white man.

[poochy]

Stop trying to dodge the original question, why are whites so violent

I am sure that no other factors, such as living in less developed countries, or countries where women still don't have full equality has nothing to do with the rate of reported rapes. Clearly the only factor is how white you are.

http://unu.edu/publications/articles/rape-and-hiv-as-weapons-of-war.html

[H10]

I am sure that no other factors, such as living in less developed countries, or countries where women still don't have full equality has nothing to do with the rate of reported rapes. Clearly the only factor is how white you are.

http://unu.edu/publications/articles/rape-and-hiv-as-weapons-of-war.html

Its not about white skin causing crime, if I thought whites were an inherently criminal race, I wouldn't ask the question. It would answer the question of why they commit crime, they are inherently criminal. I don't think that, I believe there are some cultural or societal factors. But I am trying to determine what they are. Part of the reason why its confusing is because the violence is spread throughout the white world, from chile to argentina to russia france and sweden, all polar opposites in the white world, so I can't see what these nations/cultures have in common. My hope was someone white would explain what it was. But instead most of the poster just get offended or try to blame minorities or throw red herrings on minorities and crime. I don't care about minorities, that isn't the topic of the thread. Minorities have nothing to do with the 200 white bikers arrested last week in mass white violence. Unless you are trying to say minorities secretly drive whites to murder other whites.

And if you are going to say hiv/aids is a weapon of war, you need to look at how white nations created hiv/aids as a bio weapon under the "opv vaccine program" against blacks, homosexuals and "other undesirables". This is precisely why the countries who invented vaccines in Africa refuse to take the bio weapon vaccines that the west is trying to dump on them. The africans say, send us the tools, we'll make our own polio vaccines, the whites say no, you have to take our vaccines or nothing at all. The irony is that white Americans are now rebelling against the same poisionus vaccines they use to dump in africa, after the top scientist in merck admitted to spiking over 100,000 vaccines in the 1980s with aids/hiv.

Anyhow, this is so far off topic, answer the question of the origins of white violence or don't respond.

[poochy]

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/white-calgary-mom-hopes-community-bbq-will-stop-her-family-from-being-racially-slurred

Racism is only a white problem.

[poochy]

Anyhow, this is so far off topic, answer the question of the origins of white violence or don't respond.

The chart you posted proved absolutely nothing, thanks for playing.

[-1=e^ipi]

@hernanday - I'm not particularly convinced that 'white people' have a disproportionately high rate of crime. Perhaps you should perform a linear regression where the dependent variable is the crime rate, and the independent variables include the different races as a percentage of the population, income per capita, the gini coefficient, life expectancy, average level of education + other factors that can explain differences in outcome in the crime rate between countries. Then you can test the hypothesis of if having a larger white population has a positive effect on the crime rate or not. If you can show that 'whiteness' has a positive effect on the crime rate at the 95% confidence level, then I will accept your claim (assuming the model used takes into account all of the relevant explanatory variables).