August 9, 2011

Riots in England

Philip Johnston writes in The Telegraph:
If Britain today jailed the same ratio of people relative to the number of the most serious offences – burglary, robbery and violence – as it did in 1954, there would not be 80,000 behind bars, but 300,000. It may well be true, as penal reformers maintain, that there are some people in jail who ought not to be; but by the same token, there are an awful lot who should be who aren’t.

I'm reminded of Danny Boyle's fine 2004 film Millions about a family that moves into a new suburban development in England. One interesting (and no doubt realistic) aspect is the fecklessness of the British police. An ineffectual-looking copper with an intellectual's beard addresses a neighborhood meeting (dialogue roughly remembered):
Bobbie: "Christmas is coming so it's a statistical certainty your house will get robbed. But that's what we're here for!" 
Subject: "To prevent robberies or to catch the criminals?" 
Bobbie: "Neither, of course. But after you do get robbed, we will give you your official victimization number so you can file a claim with your insurance company."

The last time I was in England was in 1994. I recall having lunch at an office park in a suburb of Oxford -- about the safest-looking environment imaginable -- and local co-workers spent their entire lunch telling me about their cars getting stolen. 

Like the British government in Anthony Burgess's 1962 dystopian novel A Clockwork Orange, the British Government has gone for largely technocratic techniques to fight crime, such as huge numbers of surveillance cameras. These appeared to have been making some progress in recent years, but they are obviously vulnerable to being overwhelmed by mobs taking the simple precaution of wearing bandandas over their faces.

As for the racial composition of the rioters, the press has obviously been reluctant to provide impressions. Presumably, the core are black, with lots of whites joining in -- a testament to the greater degree of black-white amity in England than in America. There were major Muslim riots in 2001 in the north of England, but I can't tell about these yet.

Here's what I wrote for UPI a decade ago about press coverage of 2001 riots in Northern England:
News coverage of the recent race riots in Northern England has been highly confusing to American readers. Many of us have had a hard time deciphering even such basics as which racial group has been doing most of the rioting. So, here is a quick guide to understanding who the rioters have been. 
The first problem faced by readers is the elite press' aversion toward publishing unpleasant facts about people of non-European descent. Just as the New York Times had been reluctant last April to use the word "rioting" to describe Cincinnati's large-scale African-American rioting, the Times was squeamish about making clear to its readers that most of the criminal acts in Bradford, Burnley, and other English industrial cities has been committed not by whites, but by what the British call "Asians." 
For example, nowhere in New York Times' reporter Sarah Lyall's July 8th story on the Bradford brouhaha, "Race Riot in Another City in Northern England Is Worst So Far," does she ever directly say that Asians made up the main mob. One might think that when reporting on a race riot, the identity of the race doing most of the rioting would be the single most important fact. Yet, a reader of this account in America's "newspaper of record" would have had to be alert enough to connect clues in two separate paragraphs to get a hint of this essential detail. 
Since then, an organization of Bradford's Asian businessmen has taken out an ad in a local newspaper apologizing to the community on the behalf of the law-abiding majority of Asians for the actions of some violent Asian youth. 

166 comments:

Texas First! said...

Presumably, the core are black, with lots of whites joining in -- a testament to the greater degree of black-white amity in England than in America.

You're a riot, Steve Sailer.

Anonymous said...

I am certain it is entirely blacks who are rioting. If there were any whites, you can be sure the MSM would say, "mixed race mobs." That would cheer them up, the idea that whites are rioting. Instead, there is no mention whatsoever of the race of the rioters. An absolute give-away.

Londoner said...

It's a mega-chimpout. True, sizeable numbers of white chavs have joined in - and of course the media use pictures of them to illustrate the riots wherever possible - but they're still the minority, and followers rather than leaders. Blacks have looted, trashed and burned down huge areas of London, and now the contagion is spreading to other cities. Large buildings with people inside them are being set on fire and it is remarkable that large numbers of people have not been killed.

Black "community leaders" are blaming the system, blaming the police, blaming racism - anything and anyone other than the blacks who are doing the rioting and looting. Not one of them will criticise them in ANY way. It's obvious that they (names to G**gle: Lee Jasper, Symeon Brown, Darcus Howe) support and enjoy what is happening.

The police are afraid to do anything for fear of being called racist - this has been the case for many years now, and when the vast majority of violent criminals in London come from ethnic minorities (and the vast majority of them from one particular minority) it puts us law-abiding white folks in rather a lot of grief. The politicians have all been on holiday and even now, having rushed back, are doing little of substance. They are weak and incompetent.

Helter Skelter is upon us. Signing off from London - a vibrant, diverse, multicultural, violent, chaotic, shattered, burnt-out nightmare.

JerseyGuy said...

It's astonishing to see how much the bottom has fallen off in Britain. I know some conservatives are quick to blame the welfare state but I think that is too easy. Most of the rioters in London and Birmingham have been black but I just watched a video of the rioters on the Daily Telegraph website and on BBC America and almost all of them were white. They also have a video of the Police moving into a housing estate in Manchester and most of the residents are white. There are also reports of rioting in Liverpool and I assume they are mostly white as well.

Why hasn't a vast, violent native born underclass developed in Sweden? In Denmark? In Germany? Hell, even in Italy? I honestly don't know. I've thought about it for a while now but it's just shocking to see how much the bottom 50% has declined.

Disgruntled said...

I saw a picture of a community that hadn't been looted. The newspaper said that it was a Turkish community and showed the neighborhood streets filled with young men. Seems not everyone in England is afraid to stand up to the looters. Much like the Koreans during the LA riots.

JerseyGuy said...

Sorry, I meant that most of the rioters in Manchester were white (and all with the classic hooded sweatshirts). I'm waiting to see what Theodore Dalrymple has to say. Interesting times...

helene edwards said...

This morning my favorite right-leaning talk radio show interviewed an English FoxNews reporter named Alistair something. The host asked him whether there was any "noticeable common factor" in the rioters. The guy said he couldn't find one, beyond their youth.

Anonymous said...

I lived in England for three years, and I have one observation: In the U.S., if I were walking down a street and saw a group of young black men coming down the sidewalk toward me, I would be inclined to cross the street. In England, I would be more likely to do so if the young men were white.

Anonymous said...

I saw a picture of a community that hadn't been looted. The newspaper said that it was a Turkish community and showed the neighborhood streets filled with young men.

Well, they do get a free pass on the racism charge, the police seem to be letting them take care of business.

Any self avowed white group who did that would seen feel the hand of the law on their shoulders.

Kylie said...

From The Daily Mail:

"Prime Minister David Cameron recalls Parliament on Thursday as Government tries to quell uprising"

Cameron Piddles While London Burns

Hard to believe that this is the same government that, less than 75 years ago, stood alone to confront the Nazi juggernaut, offering hope to Europe and a matchless example of courage to the entire world.

Oh, wait, it's not.

It's now the government that provides food, housing and medical care to savage ingrates and then cowers while they loot and burn its cities with impunity.

TH said...

Why hasn't a vast, violent native born underclass developed in Sweden? In Denmark? In Germany?

Indeed. The welfare state explanation is nonsense. It would make more sense to argue that there's a large white underclass in Britain because the welfare state is less generous and redistributive there than on the Continent.

Anonymous said...

RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE YOUTHS.

Anonymous said...

FEAR OF A YOUTH PLANET.

Anonymous said...

IT TAKES A NATION OF MILLIONS TO HOLD US BACK.

Kylie said...

From The Daily Mail:

"Asked if plastic bullets could be used, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Steve Kavanagh said: 'That's a tactic that will be used by the Metropolitan Police if deemed necessary.'
He added that he was 'not going to throw 180 years of policing with the community away' as the prospect of using the non-lethal ammunition for the first time at a British disturbance was raised."


Now where have I heard something like that before? Let me see, let me see...oh, I know.

From former US Army Chief of Staff, General George Casey re the aftermath of the Fort Hood shootings, "Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse."

Anonymous said...

Why hasn't a vast, violent native born underclass developed in Sweden? In Denmark? In Germany? Hell, even in Italy? I honestly don't know. I've thought about it for a while now but it's just shocking to see how much the bottom 50% has declined.

Ever wonder why the Irish are the world's best drunks while the English are the worst? Maybe relevant that the late Irish comedian Dave Allen used to say: "If you want to make an Irishman happy, talk to him. If you want to make an Englishman happy, don't talk to him."

Anonymous said...

I've seen a lot of pictures of the riots and there seem to be a lot of white English chavs taking part. The large majority are black, but they've got plenty of whites rioting with them.

The only Indians I've seen are actually victims of the rioters, whose stores got ransacked.

Pakistanis/Bangladeshis are strangely absent from the scene. I suppose a lot of them dislike blacks and white Chavs, and are also physically scared of them. Paki parents also tend to have a lot of control and can exert it when they want.

The 2001 riots were instigated by Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. In that riot, the Pakis fought agains the white chavs and the government. Lots of Indians got their stores looted too. In this riot, blacks and whites are working together.

Chavs dislike Pakis, but really like black people.

Anonymous said...

Theodore Dalymple once remarked that blacks, Chavs, and Pakis share the same underclass culture. Indians, for some reason, stay away from those groups and are often harassed by them.

White English guys are a lot more thuggish, angy, and "alpha" (to use Whiskey language) than Amerians. A lot of the street mayhem is caused by them. They seem to be a little scared of blacks, but are more than willing to harass Indians and fight groups of Pakis.

Anonymous said...

"Why hasn't a vast, violent native born underclass developed in Sweden? In Denmark? In Germany? Hell, even in Italy? I honestly don't know. I've thought about it for a while now but it's just shocking to see how much the bottom 50% has declined."

I think it's because:

1. UK is culturally and linguistically closer to US. British musicians, therefore, were earlier to adopt rock n roll, blues, and etc. Other European nations caught on too, but the English were simply closer to the US, with American hits becoming hits in UK, and British hits being hits in the US.
Though all Europeans love rock music, the language barrier did play a part in keeping the continentals less (African)Americanized.
Also, UK, being an island nation, always felt somewhere between US and EU.

2. British history of imperialism in Africa and Carribean led to closer cultural, social, and political ties between UK and African nations(and places like Jamaica and Bahamas). So, UK has more blacks.

3. The legacy of class 'oppression' led to more intense youth/prole identity, rebellion, and politics in UK than in other European nations.
Under punk-ism, elements of youth culture, working class angst, welfare class decay, and intellectual anarchism came together.
UK is historically funny. In some ways, Anglos were the greatest pioneers of freedom and individualism in all of Europe. On the other hand, class privilege and divisions were more strict in UK than in many other European nations.
Also, the moderate and gradual social and political changes in UK didn't allow for much in the way of mass catharsis for much of its history. (Indeed, Brits may have been more willing to experiment with individual freedom precisely because their society was relatively stable, orderly, and hiearchical. Unstable social orders generally don't take chances.)
French Revolution was bloody, but the French mass psychology got some rage off its chest; it was cathartic. And drastic breaks also happened in other European nations, with total fall of the old order and arrival of new order. So, there was an element of CHANGE and CATHARSIS.

But there was no great revolution in UK. Things happened more gradually and slowly, more moderately. Over time, much did indeed change, but many Brits never felt sufficiently liberated from the past. They never got to rise up and bring the system down and sing something like the Marselleis. 'God Save the Queen' is nice but not very liberating-feeling.
Instead, even as things changed over time, lower Brits had to go on calling upper Brits 'governor' and such.

Anonymous said...

So, it was really with rise of Rock culture and punk that Brits--at least culturally--exploded and gave a big fat middle finger to the system. Brits psychologically felt liberated only in the 60s.
Instead of saying 'sir' to upperclass people, Brits finally began to say 'fuck you, bloke' beginning in the 60s.
Over time, even upper class people got affected by the new value system. They too got to acting 'bloody stupid' to show how hip, progressive, and liberated they are. And recall Princess Diana was a big fan of trash culture.

In a way, Thatcherism too was a kind of 'fuck you' to the system. Thatcher was of small businessman background, a people often looked down by the mandarin class of aristocrats, government officials, intellectuals, and elites. Thatcher's 'conservatism' was also meant as an angry blow against the old system of privilege. She embraced go-getter entrepreneurs of the American model. She felt closer, in some ways, to immigrant shop owners than with haughty neo-aristocrats of the left and lazy welfare-dependent masses who just wanted to indulge in pop culture and live on welfare.

So, a mix of prole middle-fingerism('angry young men' of the 60s and punks in the 70s) and entrepreneur middle-fingerism(thatcherism and free market libertarian yuppie-ism)unwittingly colluded to create a new culture of anti-establishmentarianism and libertine-ism.

It was like the mix of idiocy of the trashy infantile left and the crass materialistic right.

Anonymous said...

"I lived in England for three years, and I have one observation: In the U.S., if I were walking down a street and saw a group of young black men coming down the sidewalk toward me, I would be inclined to cross the street. In England, I would be more likely to do so if the young men were white."

Good point. I think, in some ways, whites in America have been 'tamed' by black violence.
So many whites have been victims of black violence that they associate social violence with blacks and as a 'black thing', and as such, they are more likely to condemn violence as a bad thing.

It's like this. Imagine a school full of small Asians. There will be Asian bullies and punks(and I've read Japan has a serious bully problem in schools). But suppose lot of bigger whites come to school, and they start picking on Asians. Even formerly asshole Asian bullies might come to associate bullying and violence with white thugs picking on smaller Asians. Having been victimized, they might be more prone to denounce violence(since it often means whites kicking yellow butt). In contrast, whites may be less likely to condemn violence since they associate it with white guys acting tough and dominating over others.
Now, suppose a whole bunch of blacks enter the school and push whites around. Whites will then associate violence with bad stuff and condemn it(since it often means black violence against whites). But blacks will be more likely to celebrate violence as cool since it means black power over others. Now, if there were a race of green people who were tougher than blacks....

UK is a lot whiter than the US--as of yet--so, there has long been a culture of white hooligans dominating the streets and acting like thugs. Many Brits still associate social violence with white power(just as those kids at Vancouver associated violence with their own power.)
But if UK turns more black, and if more Brits associate violence with blacks attacking whites, the culture may change.

Anonymous said...

Now we see the violence inherent in the system.

Help. Help. Oi'm bein' repressed.

Anonymous said...

"I've seen a lot of pictures of the riots and there seem to be a lot of white English chavs taking part."

Given the general bias of the press in reporting the rioters racial info, it's hard to know whether or not these pictures are representative of them. It may also be that journalists feel safer or have greater access to neighborhoods where whites are mor elikely to be rioters, i.e., neighborhoods where whites happen to live.

Many of the "white" faces I've seen in the pics look more Mediterranean/Arab than white British.

Anonymous said...

UK is now a bad sitcom called HOOLIGAN'S ISLAND.

beowulf said...

Its hard to take seriously a police force that doesn't arm its officers out on patrol. At least give them Glock "pocket rockets", no one will be the wiser until its time to start shooting.
http://www.usglock.com/index_files/glock33.htm

anony-mouse said...

Until the 20th century England never had a real army (As Bismarck said, if the British Army ever invaded Germany he's have the police arrest them). Naval combat is essentially 100% artillery so there was never a mass outlet for the violent other than becoming hoodlums.

Anonymous said...

There seems to be two kind of 'progressivism'.

The aggressively hateful agenda of the Left.
The passively hopeful agenda of Liberals.

The Left leads the political, demographic, and cultural assault on Britain, and the Liberals are psychologically, morally, and spiritually defenseless to do anything about it.

Liberal mentality is best embodied by someone like Richard Attenborough. He made the feel-good movie CRY FREEDOM where Biko was a peace-loving marytr, and all it took to make the world a better place was goody-goody conscience and compassion among whites. Well, look at South Africa today.

Liberals may not be aggressively anti-nationalist or suicidal, but they are helpless and defenseless when it comes to necessary action. They lack the will, the confidence, and moral righteousness to take necessary action.
Though they don't wanna lose their country, they'd still rather lose it than do anything that might smack of 'racism' and 'xenophobia'. The premise of liberal morality is: whites committed sins in the past, whites have the power and wealth today, and therefore, the only way whites can be moral is by being goody-goody people.

It's like a Quaker or Amish may not want to be killed but would rather be killed than commit violence to defend himself or his family.

Anonymous said...

So many whites have been victims of black violence that they associate social violence with blacks and as a 'black thing', and as such, they are more likely to condemn violence as a bad thing.

What dreck! The percentage of white Americans who have been the victims of black violence is miniscule.


It's like this. Imagine a school full of small Asians. There will be Asian bullies and punks(and I've read Japan has a serious bully problem in schools). But suppose lot of bigger whites come to school, and they start picking on Asians. Even formerly asshole Asian bullies might come to associate bullying and violence with white thugs picking on smaller Asians.


Ah, God ...

For the last time, whites are not smaller or weaker than blacks.

Let's try that with italics.

whites are not smaller or weaker than blacks.

It's a scientific fact.

Anonymous said...

I lived in England for three years, and I have one observation: In the U.S., if I were walking down a street and saw a group of young black men coming down the sidewalk toward me, I would be inclined to cross the street. In England, I would be more likely to do so if the young men were white.


That's not a very wise position for you to adapt, statistically speaking. In Britain as in America, blacks are greatly overrepresented among the criminal class. Your odds would be a lot better if you stayed on the side with the white Englishmen.

Blacks in Britain make up about 2% of the population, but over 14% of the prison inmates. That's a greater rate of criminality than even in the US.

Anonymous said...

Londoner is correct. This is essentially a chimpout. The whites are tag-along buddies and secondary actors. (What the media calls 'opportunistic' thugs).

Why this matters is that we live in upside-down world. The racial character is what gives the riots 'legitimacy' in the eyes of the authorities and the media. In other words, the police would have used robust methods (as opposed to 'community policing') if this had been a white or non-racial matter.
Gilbert P.

Anonymous said...

Hard to believe that this is the same government that, less than 75 years ago, stood alone to confront the Nazi juggernaut, offering hope to Europe and a matchless example of courage to the entire world.

Please. England didn't "stand alone" in confronting Germany. It had the backing of the world's most powerful nation (the United States) and had Germany outflanked to the East by the Soviet Union.

What you write is Allied war propaganda.

Whiskey said...

There are two big pictures over at Larry Auster's site. One is of a White woman in Memphis TN on her knees begging some Black guy to forgive her for White racism. The other of some skinny White guy obediently handing over his clothes to some big towering Black guy.

Whites in Britain know they will both get their ass kicked (Blacks are bigger and better at violence) and go to jail too, if they fight back. Since the pols all depend on both the Black vote (about 2% of Britain is Black) and more importantly the "Nice White Lady" vote which thinks the White guys (Beta males all) have it coming.

Of course that's not sustainable. The Government has basically ceded control of the streets, permanently. Muslims fought back as did the Turks against the nearly all Black mobs. The EDL and BNP are getting into the act, seeing an opportunity (protect where no one else will). And everyone forgot about Breivik as even ritzy places like Kensington, Notting Hill, and Chef Jaime Oliver's restaurant go up in flames or get looted (and patrons robbed and beaten).

Anonymous said...

in a scene right out of camp of the saints, when some white englishmen tried to form a vigilante group to protect their neighborhood, the police came down on THEM like hawks.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2011/aug/09/london-riots-day-four-live-blog?CMP=twt_gu

Camp of the Saints.... the most prophetic novel since 1984

Anonymous said...

I've thought about it for a while now but it's just shocking to see how much the bottom 50% has declined.

Theodore Dalrymple has made a career out of cataloguing this phenomenon.

Anonymous said...

maybe because this lady's west indian, she can tell it like it is:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/katharinebirbalsingh/100099830/these-riots-were-about-race-why-ignore-the-fact/

Anonymous said...

So, it's all come down to HONKEY SEE, HONKEY DO.

If blacks are doing it, it must be cool, badass, hip, and righteous, so whiteys feel they gotta be cool too.

muh name said...

to anon above,

interesting idea about blacks keeping us white violence down, but if it were true wouldn't we expect to see a gradient in aggressive white youth culture in the u.s. that reflects black populations? i.e. more white bullying/chavism in vermont, oregon and minnesota, least in the south or inner cities. i suspect we would actually find the opposite.

Anonymous said...

"English" riots??

Anonymous said...

Folks, remember, this is Steve Sailer's blog, so let's try to find a way to blame the English riots on the Jooooooooossss!

Anonymous said...

Whites in the U.S used to be tough and have inner city gangs kicking blacks or other ethnicities asses (ever heard of Hell's Kitchen?).Whites would probably still be doing shit if it were like 30-40 years ago when ending up in jail you needed to commit actual crime not just as a preventative measure.

However, the American police state made it very difficult to go through life that way, so most whites gave up on crime and hooliganism. But, blacks were too dumb to ever change so they keep doing it and end up in jail very quickly.

It seems like Police aren't as powerful in the UK yet, so there are still plenty of whites being fuckjobs.

PV van der Byl said...

As far back as 1990, Charles Murray predicted these sorts of violent pathologies would appear in Britain in his monograph “The Emerging British Underclass.”

Murray saw a rise of three factors in combination as critical:
1) illegitimacy
2) violent crime and
3) drop-out from the labor force.

All three factors have prevailed in large parts of the UK.

It is true that Scandinavia has even higher rates of illegitimacy overall and Germany (particularly in the East) has suffered bouts of regionally high unemployment. But neither Germany nor Scandinavia has had the same level of violent crime nor perennial unemployment as has been the case in much of Britain.

Murray reviewed his 1990 predictions in 1996
(see http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cw33.pdf) and again in 2001
(see
http://www.nationalaffairs.com/doclib/20080710_20011452thebritishunderclasstenyearslatercharlesmurray.pdf)

Work-around said...

Here's the work-around for MSM to mention that the protesters are mostly minority (can't quite get them to say black). Bring up their victimhood. As in:

"Cameron's conservative government is under fire for spending cuts to social programs in order to help reduce the country's debt. Among those hit the hardest are large numbers of minority youths who have been at the forefront of the unrest."

See so long as the riotors are victims they can be mostly "minority".

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/10/world/europe/10britain.html?_r=1&ref=world

There are some hard working journalists out there who figure these things out.

Work-around said...

wrong link on that last one, should've been:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/44073673

Anonymous said...

Alex Jones, believe it or not, is good on the English riots:
http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2011/08/eye-witness-account.html

Anonymous said...

It was like the mix of idiocy of the trashy infantile left and the crass materialistic right.

Thats brilliant, the ideology of the ruling elites of white countries (almost) everywhere in a nutshell.

Anonymous said...

Londoner is correct. This is essentially a chimpout. The whites are tag-along buddies and secondary actors. (What the media calls 'opportunistic' thugs).

The MSM with its fearless devotion to truth works hard to show video and pics where white rioters are framed in the centre of the screen.

Anonymous said...

England didn't "stand alone" in confronting Germany. It had the backing of the world's most powerful nation (the United States) and had Germany outflanked to the East by the Soviet Union.

Yes and no, the US was certainly supporting Britain but the USSR was still in the Molotov Pact with Germany. Outside of the empire, Britain had no effective, active, allies between May 1940 and December 1941.

Anonymous said...

A mixed group of mostly British whites and some blacks pretended to help an injured student, but then mugged him of his possessions.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20090089-503543.html

Yeah blacks are taking the lead in the rioting, but there's tons of white scum in Britain that are causing chaos. Don't deny it.

Also don't deny that the Pakis/Asians, who are flawed and contemptible in many different ways, are hardly involved at all in this. It's a black/white thing.

I've seen lots of interviews with Indians whose shops have been looted.

Anonymous said...

It seems like Police aren't as powerful in the UK yet, so there are still plenty of whites being fuckjobs.

What about prisons in the US, and their black and hispanic inmates?

A white criminal ending up in prison is going to be beaten, raped, murdered by ethnic gangs. That is unless he is a real violent person or joins a white gang. And we all know white gangs are nazis.

The message to whites is "Dont go to prison!, really, dont go".

So the minority nature of the prisons are used to discipline and pacify the white population.

After all they are the ones the regime fears the most.

In the UK whites are still rough enough and numerous enough to survive in prison.

travis said...

The best scene in Dreams from my Father is Obama's encounter with a one-eyed, bald Iranian man in the Occidental College library. The Iranian asks Obama why the slaves never revolted in America. It's such a devastating question that Obama's Afrocentric buddy who was with him during the conversation suddenly stopped wearing his African medallion and disappeared from school, never to be heard from again. I got the impression that was the moment when Obama dropped any notions he may have been harboring about black militancy. He decided to take a softer, more indirect approach, which was a wise decision.

Steve Sailer said...

Yeah, well, how's that working out for him?

Oh, yeah, actually, pretty well.

Hunsdon said...

Hunsdon comments:

It has been a long time coming, but we may be seeing cracks in the edifice of the managerial, nice white lady state, the state that is dreadfully concerned with making sure that we think the right things, the state that is so generous with the largesse of the productive population to the unproductive (although reproductive!) population.

We hope it will be a peaceful collapse. More the Soviet Union, less Yugoslavia.

Kylie said...

"England didn't "stand alone" in confronting Germany. It had the backing of the world's most powerful nation (the United States) and had Germany outflanked to the East by the Soviet Union."

I specified "75 years ago". There was a window there before America entered the war and Hitler invaded Russia, when England pretty much did stand alone. Austria had been annexed, Poland and France had fallen, etc. America was still very much in an isolationist mode, what help FDR gave was limited and covert.

Next time try responding to my entire comment and not taking part of it out of context. Better yet, don't bother responding at all.

Kylie said...

"Yes and no, the US was certainly supporting Britain but the USSR was still in the Molotov Pact with Germany. Outside of the empire, Britain had no effective, active, allies between May 1940 and December 1941."

Yes, that was the period to which I referred when I said England stood alone against the Nazis "less than 75 years ago".

Shawn said...

How is citizenism supposed to work with such obvious differences between the races? Here we have disgruntled Africans and Middle Easterners going on a rampage because they lack the ability to compete economically with the White majority.

Anonymous said...

Is this an appropriate time to mention Iowahawk's glorious report on the royal wedding joning the Ned and Chav dynasties in Britain?

Is there ever an inappropriate time?

Peter A said...

" Outside of the empire, Britain had no effective, active, allies between May 1940 and December 1941."

June 1941. Germany attacked the Soviet Union in June. But yes, that's essentially a full year when it was Britain against essentially all of continental Europe. Of course in those days "Britain" still meant the Empire and could count on Canadian, Australian and New Zealand for support as well as millions of Indian subjects. The UK in 1940 was not the little island rump state it is today.

Anonymous said...

The Iranian asks Obama why the slaves never revolted in America.

What's the answer to his question?

Anonymous said...

The slaves did have rebellions. I think Obama snoozed during 8th grade history.

jody said...

lol. anonymous AGAIN with his discredited fist hierarchy hypothesis.

still not clear on why europeans in nations with almost no africans have become, over time, some of the least violent people in the history of the world, despite being some seriously violent hombres for hundreds of years previously. watching what has happened to the vikings, gauls, and celts is mind boggling.

meanwhile english and scottish guys are becoming more violent over time despite being surrounded by aggressive black africans and annoying pakistanis and north africans who form muslim gangs.

eugenic trends versus dysgenic trends is the only explanation i have in europe.

in the US, canada, and australia it's a lot more easy to see what happened. the law system is, perhaps not purposefully but nevertheless, heavily biased against law abiding, gainfully employed europeans. you just go to jail now for raising your fist, no questions asked, go directly to a cell, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars when your employer fires you.

Anonymous said...

"Also don't deny that the Pakis/Asians, who are flawed and contemptible in many different ways, are hardly involved at all in this. It's a black/white thing."

In MY BEAUTIFUL LAUNDRETTE--a truly great film--Pakis were a lot more sympathetic than white thugs.

Anonymous said...

Even so, MY BEAUTIFUL LAUNDRETTE was made with a big heart, with great empathy for everyone involved. Though a far greater film than DO THE RIGHT THING, Spike Lee's trite message movie got all the attention.

jody said...

how does anonymous account for south koreans and japanese both being pretty similar genetically but south koreans just going nuts in riots while the japanese politely sit there and take whatever lies and bullshit their ridiculous, lying, full of shit government tells them?

4 prime ministers in 4 years? EIGHT finance ministers in 4 years? and not one riot? barely even a protest?

south koreans riot at the drop of a hat if the hyundai or samsung SALES NUMBERS aren't quite high enough according to some national television report.

Jack Aubrey said...

<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8692450/London-riots-Close-knit-neighbourhoods-rally-for-their-own-defence.html>How it's done.</a> Most awesome story on the riots I've read all week. In Britain, in the USA, all over the West, the government has failed to protect us. Not until the last few decades have we been brainwashed to believe that they ever could do so 100%.

Jack Aubrey said...

On above mentioned article: note the author is actually mentioning race...when it makes the minorities look good: "The Bengali community in Whitechapel also fended off a mob...Within about 10 minutes there were 1,500 people on the street, not just Asians but also Somalis”

Anonymous said...

"Londoner is correct. This is essentially a chimpout. The whites are tag-along buddies and secondary actors. (What the media calls 'opportunistic' thugs)."

You mean blacks are wolves, and whites are coyotes and jackals?Maybe to an extent, but that's too much of a copout and easy excuse for white behavior. There has long been a history of white soccer hooliganism in UK; and think of the punk culture in the 70s which was led by whites. So, to an extent, notwithstanding the fact that blacks tend to be problematic everywhere, black immigrant community in UK adopted some of the anti-social attitudes of the white underclass.

If you see THIS IS ENGLAND, you know there were plenty of white thugs in UK. And in the movie NAKED by Mike Leigh, we see white punks jumping and beating on people. And there is serious hooliganism in Russia, which has very few blacks. Whites can be trashy too.

When blacks moved to UK, they started out at the bottom and came in contact with a lot of white trash elements--the worst elements of UK. The two groups have long been fighting and feeding one another in a love/hate way. White underclass--obsessed with punk music and reggae--owes something to black influences. And black elements adopted some of the ideological attitudes and ideas from the English culture of class rebellion. The Clash sang some rap/reggae songs, and some rappers like Public Enemy credited the Clash as an inspiration.

And last summer, it was mostly white middle class college students who were acting like vile thugs simply cuz the state decided to raise their tuitions. The British middle class also seem to have an entitlementality. So, is it any wonder that many blacks in UK will feel and act likewise?

Of course, main reason for black thuggery is low IQ and aggressive temperament, but there are surely cultural, social, and political factors as well. How many race riots have there been in Cuba since the Revolution?

There is another factor. Young people gravitate toward a show of power. Youth rebellion isn't so much about being against power as about the desire to FEEL/POSSESS power. This is why young people have historically been impressed by communist, fascist, nazi, anarchist movements.
Radicals like Lenin, Mussolini, and Hitler really knew how to work on the rage of youth rebellion.
Every rebel really desires to be a tyrant. In fact, many rebel not so much against 'social injustice' but to enjoy his 15 minutes of fuhrer-dom. Morality is often just a pretext to gain power for oneself. This is true both in the hall of power and in the streets.

When Islamic Revolution emerged as a new powerful movement in Iran in the late 70s, many young Iranians really dug that. Many rebels joined the revolution.

In the past, the British Empire was full of pride, power, confidence. Young Britons respected and wanted to be part of the British Empire, so full of glory and power. They wanted to be proud British soldiers, as in the movie ZULU.

But ever since British society became weak and wussy, young people have nothing or no one of masterful power to look up to and rspect. (To be sure, the Iron Lady did earn some respect from young people in the 80s, especially when she defeated Argentina.) For the most part, there are colorless politicians like Major, Blair, Cameron. Even Griffin of BNP is a dull roly poly dufus. And all the British elite does is expound on white guilt, diversity, and blah blah blah--wussy stuff. White kids look at those people and think 'weak' and 'wimpy'.

Anonymous said...

So, there is a psychological power vacuum in British culture and society. The people who are filling it are black rappers and thugs who seem to be rough, badass, wild, and thuggish. (Muslims can be rough too, but they tend to be less musical and more stuffy, with their rags and dogmas, and so they're less fun for young rebels.) With family breakdown, with mealy mouthed politicians, with white celebrities who are mostly either old-fashioned fuddy-duddy or postmodern/soulless, it's only natural that many young white people would gravitate to and emulate the new model of power as represented by tough and musical blacks.

Anonymous said...

"interesting idea about blacks keeping us white violence down, but if it were true wouldn't we expect to see a gradient in aggressive white youth culture in the u.s. that reflects black populations? i.e. more white bullying/chavism in vermont, oregon and minnesota, least in the south or inner cities. i suspect we would actually find the opposite."

Not necessarily. I didn't say whites in a white community(without blacks)would necessarily act thuggish. A stable white community can exist anywhere. Amish communities, for example.

My point is.. WHERE THUGGISH WHITES DO EXIST, THEY WOULD LIKELY ACT LESS THUGGISH IN A COMMUNITY WITH LOTS OF BLACKS.

So, the argument isn't 'whites in a white community would act like thugs' but 'white thugs, where they do exist, will likely be more beta-male-ish IF black kids were present to push them around.'

It's like you can have a bunch of mild mannered beagles getting along. And they may well remain that way, happy and friendly amongst one another.
Now, suppose we add a few nasty and aggressive beagles to the bunch. The nasty beagles will bark and bite other beagles and try to be top dog.
But if pitbulls were added to the group, even the nasty beagles would be more toned down cuz the top dogs would be the pits.

Oddly enough, there is a kind of political alliance between mild beagles and pit bulls in the US. Take Ken Burns--a mild beagle if there ever was one--who made a gushing documentary about Jack Johnson, the fierce pit bull who mauled a whole bunch of rough beagles. You'd think mild beagle Ken Burns would be extra-afraid of pitbulls. As it turns out, mild beagles tend to do better economically and live in a safe communites. So, they don't get mauled by pitbulls but observe pitbulls indirectly from a distance. And part of this 'distance' is the cult about beagle guilt relating to how pits had been socially wronged in the past. So, to Ken Burns, Jack Johnson's thuggery is seen and romanticized through a moral and political prism; it becomes ennobled via naive idealism. And since privileged mild beagles don't get mauled by pits, they don't know what the real racial reality is like.

Anonymous said...

"how does anonymous account for south koreans and japanese both being pretty similar genetically but south koreans just going nuts in riots while the japanese politely sit there and take whatever lies and bullshit their ridiculous, lying, full of shit government tells them?"

There were massive riots in Japan in the 50s and 60s over peace treaties, vietnam war, and whole bunch of other stuff. 1968 was a very hot yr in Japan as in US and Europe. But then, 60s generation grew up and had to get jobs. And Japan's economy grew exponentially, the economic pie was divided rather fairly, and Japanese were more or less content in the 70s and 80s. Japanese were eager to be 'an economic animal' and win by excelling via trade. There has been a recession since the 90s, but the children of the 60s generation grew up with comic books, tv, videogames, pop culture, etc. They are like the kids in the movie FAMILY GAME. Clueless and without direction. Also, even with the recession, Japan has been chugging along with government spending propping up the economy. And with lowering birthrates, there are fewer young people to cause trouble.
Also keep in mind that democracy was imposed on Japan by the US. So, 'people power' never took hold in Japan. It was something enforced on Japan. Japanese were forced to be democratic by Shogun McCarthur.

South Korea is different. It was under military rule until the late 80s, and so a long tradition of political opposition--not just among hothead college kids(as in Japan in the 60s)--developed generation after generation. Also, Japanese workers had it pretty good, relatively speaking. Korean workers had to deal with much lower pay and tougher conditions.
So, against military rule and against company management, there developed a far more robust political culture of opposition. Unlike Japan where democracy was imposed, South Koreans won democracy by street battles, massive protests, and etc. So, Koreans are likely to feel more involved, more passionate, and more proud of their democracy than the Japanese of theirs.
Koreans are also called the Irish of Asia. Based on nasty and vile Korean movies, I believe it. Check out the movie FRIEND. What a bunch of crazy hothead headbashers.

Anonymous said...

South Asians and Turks are physically not that large, but mobs of them are chasing black and white rioters away from their stores. It shows you that having guts is neccessary enough to protect civilized society.

Anonymous said...

"still not clear on why europeans in nations with almost no africans have become, over time, some of the least violent people in the history of the world, despite being some seriously violent hombres for hundreds of years previously. watching what has happened to the vikings, gauls, and celts is mind boggling."

Again, I didn't say whites-on-their-own would necessarily act thugghish. I said white thugs, where they do exist, would likely act less thuggish when blacks are around.

It's like this. Hatfields and McCoys will fight one another but if a whole bunch of blacks moved in, they might end the blood feud and stick together as peaceful kins.
Ever see the movie THE WANDERERS where Italian-American kids are scared shitless of fighting blacks?
Without blacks, various white ethnic groups often fought one another at school: polacks, dagos, micks, russkies, etc. But when blacks entered the scene, the various ethnics just become 'white people'. Indeed, fear of blacks may have played a role in creating a united white consciousness--just as fear of Russians(and communism)forged a united Western European identity during the Cold War, paving the way for EU.

Against blacks, various white ethnic groups might join forces together. But if they get whupped by blacks nevertheless, even white toughies are gonna act less tough and learn the lesson that 'might is right' is such a good idea.

Same with Germans and Japanese. They used to be so cocky and arrogant during WWII. But once they got mauled by USSR and US, they got terribly traumatized and have been preaching nothing but peace ever since.

As for Europe, peace came to prevail once tribalism gave way to kingdoms and then to nations with clear borders. When many tribes existed, they fought one another. But many tribes came under the rule of a single king. Then, kingdoms fought kingdoms, but the people within a kingdom remained loyal to the king; inter-kingdom violence but intra-kingdom peace.

And then came the rise of nations where huge areas and populations came to share the same identity and interests. There was less need for fight--though imperfect borders and imperialist conflicts and ambitions led to WWI and WWII.
But once that got settled, there has been no reason for Europeans to fight one another. One major exception was Yugoslavia, where ethnic borders remained unresolved until the bloodbath in the 90s.

I think most white people are, by nature, not too violent. But violent ones do exist, but they'll be less violence-prone if they get whupped by a tougher people.

Blacks, otoh, are generally a wild and violent people.

Anonymous said...

"A mixed group of mostly British whites and some blacks pretended to help an injured student, but then mugged him of his possessions."

That is pretty much like the psychological ploy used by people like Obama.

People like Obama know:

1. Whites have been instilled with guilt toward blacks.

2. Whites fear blacks.

So, Obama sees White America, cowering, afraid, and traumatized by black reailty. He offers a helping hand, and whites are so grateful of a clean-cut black guy reaching out to them in a show of friendship that they are blind to the fact that Obama is playing them for a sucker and trying to rip them off blind.
Or, even if they've figured out that Obama, Holder, and that ilk are crooks, they'd rather play along with the charade because the alternative is too depressing and humiliating.

Indeed, after every black riot or mayhem, some 'black leaders' come to the fore in the name of 'peace' and 'reconciliation', but their main goal is to extort money from whites who are foolish enough to think, 'gee, if we give this nice black guy support and funds, maybe he will calm down the black community.' It's all a bulljive jazzy con act.

Anonymous said...

"Cameron's conservative government is under fire for spending cuts to social programs in order to help reduce the country's debt. Among those hit the hardest are large numbers of minority youths who have been at the forefront of the unrest."

In other words, some communities cannot create their own wealth or run their own business. They are forever like babies who need their diapers changed and need to be breastfed. If not, they throw tantrums.

Rule #1 for rich nations. Do not import infantile populationas from the Third World, especially if you already have too many babyish white ones.

Anonymous said...

"Folks, remember, this is Steve Sailer's blog, so let's try to find a way to blame the English riots on the Jooooooooossss!"

This has to be the notorious donutboy.

Anonymous said...

"Camp of the Saints.... the most prophetic novel since 1984"

Except for the idea of hindus taking over Europe. Heavens sake, why not eskimos?

Anonymous said...

"Camp of the Saints.... the most prophetic novel since 1984"

Except for hindus taking over Europe. Heaven's sake, why not Eskimos?

Simon in London said...

It started as a black race riot, but very rapidly became blacks + lots of underclass whites looting freely. 'Asians' - primarily Muslims - seem to be conspicously absent as rioters from the reports; they are more likely to appear as heroic vigilantes defending their uncle's corner shop, like the Turkish '300' who successfully defended their north London territory against 150 black or mostly-black would-be looters.

headache said...

Why hasn't a vast, violent native born underclass developed in Sweden? In Denmark? In Germany?


Simple. The welfare state is still more intact in those countries. Bascially they pay off the underclass to stay off the street.

Anonymous said...

"Except for the idea of hindus taking over Europe. Heavens sake, why not eskimos?"

Raspail was asked about this in an interview. He said that the obvious candidates were Mohammedans from across the Mediterranean, but he had not wanted to inflame sensibilities even further. Also, the fleet sailing from a distance, around the Cape, and so on, gave the book its dramatic structure. He was also keen to make the point that rabbits can be as damaging as wolves when they arrive in plague proportions.
Gilbert P.

Simon in London said...

Anon:
"White English guys are a lot more thuggish, angy, and "alpha" (to use Whiskey language) than Amerians."

IME America's Southern Redneck guys are just as 'Alpha' as English guys. They also don't seem to have any trouble holding their own with US blacks in bar-room brawls. Fantasies of black physical superiority seem to be more a Yankee thing.

Anonymous said...

when some white englishmen tried to form a vigilante group to protect their neighborhood, the police came down on THEM like hawks.

the law system is, perhaps not purposefully but nevertheless, heavily biased against law abiding, gainfully employed europeans. you just go to jail now for raising your fist, no questions asked, go directly to a cell, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars when your employer fires you.

Anarcho-tyranny.

Simon in London said...

Anon:
"That's not a very wise position for you to adapt, statistically speaking. In Britain as in America, blacks are greatly overrepresented among the criminal class. Your odds would be a lot better if you stayed on the side with the white Englishmen."

Agreed - on average blacks are more violent than whites, in the UK as everywhere. Of course you need to use your 'gift of fear' - if groups of whites or Pakistanis seem threatening, you need to avoid them just as you'd avoid a group of threatening blacks.

IME whites are more likely to be 'angry' and attack you to hurt you, blacks are more likely to attack you to rob you - for material gain, but the 7:1 disparity still stands.

Anonymous said...

Right you are Steve.
Back in the day, in the 1960s in fact, most London police oficers were recruited from a certain stratum of the English working-class.Many were ex-army or ex-forces, were NCOs and suchlike, not particularly highly educated but with an instinctive nderstanding of the reality of human pecking-orders, dominance and intimidation - to put it short they were f*cking hard bastards, and when blacks first started filtering into London, they didn't like blacks and smashed a fair few black skulls open during 'questioning' in the police cells.Thus a hatred between blacks and the Met. police was engendered.
Of course wet British governments (both Tory and Labour) favored the blacks as martyrs and castigated the old-school police as 'rednecks'.This culminated in the 'MacPherson Report' that has effectively turned the Met. police into hand maidens for black thugs.
What we saw the other day is the inevitable result not only of 60 years of failed multi-culti, mass immigration (particularly under Blair), castrating the police and general bad government.

eh said...

...but they are obviously vulnerable to being overwhelmed by mobs taking the simple precaution of wearing bandandas over their faces.

That's only because of police failings, which may in turn be due to policy failings, e.g. decisions about what the police may and may not do in such circumstances, and how the police are trained.

Simon in London said...

Anon:
"Yeah blacks are taking the lead in the rioting, but there's tons of white scum in Britain that are causing chaos. Don't deny it.

Also don't deny that the Pakis/Asians, who are flawed and contemptible in many different ways, are hardly involved at all in this. It's a black/white thing.

I've seen lots of interviews with Indians whose shops have been looted."

That definitely fits my impression on the ground. If our local Muslim or Tamil 'youth' were involved in the rioting/looting I would have seen it. It started as a black race riot but the white underclass are participating very enthusiastically, it's not just a media thing. And they are opposed by (non-underclass) working-class whites, and by south Asians defending their territories & shops.

Groups that would be mutually hostile in different circumstances (EDL + Pakistani Muslims) are on the same 'good guy' side right now. Isn't Diversity wonderful?

Simon in London said...

anon:
"There has long been a history of white soccer hooliganism in UK"

While it varies, soccer hooligans are typically working-class (ie they have jobs) not underclass. In the current situation they're the white guys forming defensive militias, not the white guys doing the looting.

ATBOTL said...

Keep in mind that the blacks in the UK are Caribbean and African -- you know -- the people we consider to be the "good blacks" here in the US. Europeans can't really comprehend the level of violence and aggressiveness among the black American population. The "dangerous ghettos" in London are a total joke by US standards. "Notorious" neighborhoods like Brixton and Tottenham still have large numbers of white people living there. There is no UK equivalent of Detroit or Newark.

We can see this by the fact that many white children felt comfortable joining in with the rioters. Try to imagine that happening in the LA 92 riot or even the more recent Cincinnati riot. No one even got killed in these joke riots.

As for "Theodore Dalrymple," he is an anti-English, pro-race replacement Jew who stories are "composites," ie fictional.

fbj said...

It won't be long now until a Tory politician says "Enoch was right" or something similar and gets fired by David Cameron... ;-)

David said...

I think the racial composition of the mobs varies in different parts of the UK. In London and Birmingham it is mainly blacks with a significant number of white 'wigga' associates. In the North it seems to be mainly the white underclass: see e.g. this clip from Manchester:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8692793/Manchester-riots-Gangster-Dominic-Noonan-caught-on-film-during-Manchester-looting.html

Londoner said...

Re: the white element of the disturbances. Yes, it is quite large, but the disturbances are very large and the majority is still white, so it stands to reason that there will be a non-trivial white contribution.

here are now perhaps millions of low/underclass whites in Britain (mainly England) with no work, no memories of work, one parent at most, no discipline and no motivation. Executive summary: the right (Thatcher) destroyed the heavy industries that employed them and sustained their communities in the 1980s, and the left (Labour) abandoned them in favour of any and every non-white/immigrant group in the 1990s and 2000s. They have thus had their head and feet chopped off and have unsurprisingly imploded as a result, and fallen into the orbit of immigrant thug culture. No politicians care about them and they seem to be utterly doomed. Wider context: the English and Scottish working classes do have a long history of violence, most obvious in football hooliganism in England and sectarian religious violence in Scotland, but there was never anything this extreme or induscriminate before the Vibrancy.

Other groups: the Pakistanis are (a bit) smarter than the West Indians and (a bit) less troublesome but have unsavoury practices such as preying sexually on underage white girls (you should see the contortions the media and politicians go through when those cases emerge). The Hindus are fairly smart and fairly harmless, and retain strong family values, while the Sikhs are good citizens and don't tolerate trouble from anyone.

Now this has happened once it will surely happen again - and worse. Things may get detroity round here...

Anonymous said...

Ever see the movie THE WANDERERS where Italian-American kids are scared shitless of fighting blacks?

Because they weren't serious-and didn't want to wind up as potential career criminals. Mexicans weren't deterred from ethnically cleansing blacks from much of LA.

Related: little Mexican ends career of black football star:
http://glpiggy.net/2011/07/11/petitioning-street-justice/

Gc said...

Street gang fights are not so much about physical strenght, but craziness(e.g weapons) and numbers advantage. It means nothing to be big and strong if guns are involved.

Anonymous said...

Look explanations are OK but we need solutions. The Youth love to antagonizs police especially in groups...it gives them a feeling of power. First BAN all blackberry mobiles in England. Next round up all 'innocent' offenders and get them to clean up policed by their relatives/friends/authority. Next FIX the Economy so that the needy have something worth striving for.Western economies are causing familiies to STRUGGLE for too long creating discontent and desperation.Whats left but mass RIOTS.

Anonymous said...

Look explanations are OK but we need solutions. The Youth love to antagonizs police especially in groups...it gives them a feeling of power. First BAN all blackberry mobiles in England. Next round up all 'innocent' offenders and get them to clean up policed by their relatives/friends/authority. Next FIX the Economy so that the needy have something worth striving for.Western economies are causing familiies to STRUGGLE for too long creating discontent and desperation.Whats left but mass RIOTS.

Anonymous said...

Look explanations are OK but we need solutions. The Youth love to antagonizs police especially in groups...it gives them a feeling of power. First BAN all blackberry mobiles in England. Next round up all 'innocent' offenders and get them to clean up policed by their relatives/friends/authority. Next FIX the Economy so that the needy have something worth striving for.Western economies are causing familiies to STRUGGLE for too long creating discontent and desperation.Whats left but mass RIOTS.

Anonymous said...

Except for the idea of hindus taking over Europe. Heavens sake, why not eskimos?
that's not the point, the point is European elite's reaction and how multicultral ideology has castrated us.

Udolpho.com said...

It's now the government that provides food, housing and medical care to savage ingrates and then cowers while they loot and burn its cities with impunity.

I'm sure a libertarian society with no community ties beyond those "in my economic interest" will fix that right up.

Udolpho.com said...

whites are not smaller or weaker than blacks.

Irrelevant since they are clearly more prone to passivity. Ever been around black people in your life? They are in general far more extroverted, more demonstrative of their emotions, and are more dominant of their space. The white stereotype, by contrast, is look away, pretend you didn't hear, and shrink physically.

Perspective said...

Most of the rioters in London and Birmingham were black (including a few presumably Pakistanis). There were some pictures in the daily mail showing a few South Asian rioters.
In Manchester and Liverpool, however, the majority of the rioters are white british chav types. They wear clothing typically associated with chav culture in England. You can see some pictures of the Manchester riots here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2024203/UK-RIOTS-2011-Manchester-Midlands-burn-London-control.html

rec1man said...

Camp of Saints actually deceived white europeans

Instead of importing docile Hindu laborers, they imported blacks and muslim laborers

Plastique said...

Why hasn't a vast, violent native born underclass developed in Sweden? In Denmark? In Germany?


Because the "English" have always been ruled by a foreign overclass.

First Britons got pushed out by Anglo-Saxons, who lost the throne to the Danes but got it back briefly. Then Anglo-Saxons got conquered by Normans (French). After 400 years and a period of civil war the Welsh ascended to the throne, followed by the Scots, Dutch and finally Germans.

Matt said...

Too many people are striving to make it a race riot. It started as one, as a response to a shooting of a black man, but by this point has become a general anarchy with most participants probably unaware of who Mark Duggan is. In modern parlance, the riot has gone viral, and all the barbarians of whatever race are getting in on the action. The underlying problem is not racial, but that Western societies are reverting to the behaviors of their savage ancestors.

It turns out that civilization doesn't just happen--it has to be maintained, and it disappears if it is not.

Kylie said...

"Rule #1 for rich nations. Do not import infantile populationas from the Third World, especially if you already have too many babyish white ones."

Exactly. I often see leftists arguing that the pathologies conservatives criticize in NAM communities are present in white communities as well. The left is too stupid to realize that far from being a pro-NAM argument, this is an excellent reason why NAM immigration and social services generally should be curtailed. We have enough on our plate with our own white underclass, who seemed to be dragged down even further by ongoing contact with NAMS.

When I lived in an impoverished area, I never ceased to marvel that the better people, of all races, tended to be dragged down by the dregs yet the opposite was never true. I cannot recollect a single instance in which some lowlife improved him or herself in any lasting way by following the example of someone trying to better himself or just stay out of too much trouble. It was always the dragging down, never the lifting up. I'm not saying the latter never happens, just that my observation suggests it happens only very rarely.

Anonymous said...

Blacks are barely 2% of the British population, but well over 50% of the rioters. In addition, many of the "white" rioters appear to be more of Mediterranean/Arab stock. The idea that white Britons are a major element of the rioters is absurd.

Anonymous said...

link to most wanted from london police, mostly black

http://www.flickr.com/photos/metropolitanpolice/

dearieme said...

"lower Brits had to go on calling upper Brits 'governor' and such": thank God for the light relief.

Anonymous said...

Why can't blacks just be like peace-loving, civic-minded white people, who certainly don't have an extensive history of violently rioting?

Anonymous said...

More recently, many Indians and Pakistanis have joined it the riots.

A friend from the UK said he saw some Indian men attacking a white woman.

Anonymous said...

I've seen the videos of people who look like Indians/Pakistanis looting in the UK.

Looting isn't exactly alien to Indians:

http://www.nepalnews.com/home/index.php/news/2/1475-two-shot-dead-by-indian-looters-in-sunsari.html


Remember, Jean Raspail said that Indians are quite dangerous to the West because they could undermine the West all with an obsequious smile.

There is the HBD fact that Indians are prone to cheating. Google Indians and cheating on exams / tests. They're notorious for it and there's probably a genetic basis for it. College professors watch Indians closer than any other group of students for cheating.

Doug said...

"Except for hindus taking over Europe. Heaven's sake, why not Eskimos?"


You're missing the point of Camp of the Saints.

From the writer's perspective, muslims or blacks would be too easy. They wouldn't garnish as much support of the white leftists.

Raspail thought Indians the most dangerous because, like Ashkenazis, they're highly ethnocentric and anti-white but can hide their utter disgust of whites better than blacks or muslims.

Doug said...

Ooops, it should be garner, not garnish.


"Except for hindus taking over Europe. Heaven's sake, why not Eskimos?"


You're missing the point of Camp of the Saints.

From the writer's perspective, muslims or blacks would be too easy. They wouldn't garner as much support of the white leftists.

Raspail thought Indians the most dangerous because, like Ashkenazis, they're highly ethnocentric and anti-white but can hide their utter disgust of whites better than blacks or muslims.

Anonymous said...

"These riots were about race. Why ignore the fact?"

Katharine Birbalsingh, Daily Telegraph UK, Aug. 7, 2011

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/katharinebirbalsingh/100099830/these-riots-were-about-race-why-ignore-the-fact/

Anonymous said...

Please. England didn't "stand alone" in confronting Germany. It had the backing of the world's most powerful nation (the United States) and had Germany outflanked to the East by the Soviet Union.

Sigh. Obviously, Britain and the Commonwealth stood virtually alone against the Nazis from June 1940 to June 1941. Everyone except you knows that image of Britain "standing alone" refers to this period.

Cennbeorc

Anonymous said...

A group of three Pakistanis, among many who were defending an Asian neighorhood, was run down and killed by a black rioter/driver.

Anonymous said...

Simon, rednecks and some blue collar guys are tough, but lots of Whiskey-type white guys are wimpy too and would run from a fight. White Americans are a mixed group. My sense is that the large majority of British whites have the street fighter in them. As a society, they're more alpha, on average, than American whites.

If you go to rural areas or the South, then the white population is probably more comparable to that of Britain.

From what I hear, Scots and Irish are especially street tough people.

Anonymous said...

Pakis/Asians aren't doing much rioting because it's their stores being attacked. For them, the main objective is to fight back against white chavs and Afro-Carribeans.

Anonymous said...

Obviously, Britain and the Commonwealth stood virtually alone against the Nazis from June 1940 to June 1941.

It's that "virtually alone" part which seems peculiar. On the one side you had Nazi Germany and Facist Italy. On the other side you had Britain and its extensive empire/commonwealth, which included Canada, India, Australia, New Zealand, etc. I don't think that Britain was any more ""alone" than Germany was.

And the US in this period did everything short of military hostilities to help the British.

Anonymous said...

"Pakis/Asians aren't doing much rioting because it's their stores being attacked. For them, the main objective is to fight back against white chavs and Afro-Carribeans."

I'm opposed to immigration, but I often myself feeling closer to certain immigrant communities than with native blacks, white trash(ass tattoo folks), and white elites(whose idea of morality is 'gay marriage').

Anonymous said...

Ever been around black people in your life? They are in general far more extroverted, more demonstrative of their emotions, and are more dominant of their space. The white stereotype, by contrast, is look away, pretend you didn't hear, and shrink physically.

You're a programmer, per your profile. In other words, a geek, a nerd. Somebody who always looks away and shrinks physically.

Please don't assume that all white people are like you.

And yes, I have been around black people in my life. I shared rooms and tents with them in the army.

Anonymous said...

Nerds, SWPLs, and sometimes suburbanites shrink from fights.

Rednecks, east coast guidos, military/police/firemen, and blue collar roughnecks relish fighting.

Anonymous said...

Except for the idea of hindus taking over Europe. Heavens sake, why not eskimos?

World population of Hindus, 1 billion. Eskimos/Inuit, less than a million (probably 200K at most).

That alone is a good reason why a Hindu takeover of Europe is more plausible than an Eskimo one.

Even the Jews and Armenians are vastly more populous than the Eskimos (and infinitely more market-dominant as well.)

Anonymous said...

Re: ethnic propensity for sudden violence.

When I worked club security in college, we worried much more about the drunken Irish kids. A brother who gets offended by something shows a definite emotional escalation that may end up in a brawl, but Irish kids, way more than any other ethnicity, minority or white, would sucker punch someone without any visible reason and a smile on their face.

Jack Aubrey said...

"As for "Theodore Dalrymple," he is an anti-English, pro-race replacement Jew who stories are "composites," ie fictional."

I've read a lot of Dalrymple, and while he strikes me as perhaps being a little over the top in his critique of the natives, he has never come off as being "pro-race replacement." One of his books was bitterly criticized for its supposed anti-Muslim bigotry (these reviewers never seem to be bothered by Jewish writers saying nasty things about Anglo-Saxon whites.)

And SFAIK, he is only half-Jewish. He was raised Christian.

It's interesting that for all the allegations of the violence of Scots, the riots don't seem to have spread into Glasgow or Edinburgh.

Kylie said...

"On the other side you had Britain and its extensive empire/commonwealth, which included Canada, India, Australia, New Zealand, etc. I don't think that Britain was any more 'alone' than Germany was."

Britain certainly stood alone during the Blitz. Or is that just more Allied war propaganda? If so, please do tell us how many of the Dominions were subjected to sustained bombing by the Luftwaffe.

Anonymous said...

There is a funny irony here. Capitalist-conservatives are decrying the looting by youths who are ransacking stores for clothes, electronic goods, dvds, computers, videogames, and the like. They say the kids have been corrupted by liberal-socialism.

But isn't this all the logic of consumerism? (If Sumeria was the cradle of civilization, Consumeria could be its grave.)
Traditionally, capitalism used to mean you worked hard--as employer or employee--, saved and invested, took care of your basic needs, and then had some fun with money left over, aka gravy. There was a sense of hierarchy in terms of values and priorities.
And with pressures from moral institutions in the community, it was not deemed okay to sell just about anything for maximum profit. At one time, people peddling porn would have been locked up or ostracized and isolated.

Even so, not everything turned out well for many people. There was still many people in dire poverty without access to basic needs, like adequate food and clean water.
Back then, socialism was moralistic and reseponsible too. It wasn't about giving people EVERYTHING but making sure that workers got their fair share of the profit and that people in dire need got enough food and other basic needs.

Back then, both capitalism and socialism had elements of nobility. Capitalism said, 'work hard, accumulate wealth, save and invest, use your money wisely, take care of yourself and your family, and have fun with what's left over--as long as the fun wasn't morally filthy.'

Socialism said, 'a civilized society should ensure basic rights for workers to organize and collectively bargain; and people in dire need should be given aid until they can find jobs and take care of themselves.'

But then came consumerism, which said the purpose of business is market and sell whatever gives people the maximum amount of orgiastic pleasure, even if it coarsens the populace and turns them into barbarians. Give people fatty and sugary foods galore, porn, violent movies, moron music, trash/extreme TV, entertainment news, and etc.
Consumerism also said all these goodies should be a RIGHT, not something one should pay for by working, saving, and spending what's left.

How were consumer goods turned into a defacto 'right' for so many? Easy credit and shameless declaration of bankruptcy. And corporations and banks loved it too cuz massive consumption meant more borrowing and more purchases of their goods. Never mind that these goods were bought with borrowed money/credit. Never mind that massive welfare too has been maintained by borrowed money. We are living in an age where poor people believe it's a right to receive free cellphones.
Henry Ford expected people to work hard, earn a decent wage, and buy stuff.
Now, everyone's supposed to get easy credit to buy stuff and put it off for the future. Or, one's supposed to get it for free though government--stimulus, welfare, this or that program.
It's a corruption of both capitalism and socialism. Shameless capitalists will market and sell anything for a quick buck. And socialists are now saying 'college education' and 'cell phones' are a right.

And what do people watch with their TVs and movie screens, play on videogames, listen to on their ipods and stereos. What kind of clothes do they wear? What kinds of images, fashions, behavior, and expressions are marketed to our young impressionable people by today's capitalist corporations? Videogames celebrate mayhem and violence. Movies tell people it's cool to blow things up and wreak havoc. Pop music glorifies skanks and thugs. Given that most electronic goods in our consumer culture disseminate this kind of rot, it's somehow fitting that so many moronic youths are ransacking stores for free electronic goods.
Idiocracy in full swing. UK is now IK, or Idiot Kingdom.

rec1man said...

@Doug,
Indians are ethno-centric, but their main worries in the diaspora are blacks, muslims and assorted criminal NAMs.

I have never heard of a diaspora Hindu attacking a white native

Anonymous said...

Well, at least is Ebony and Ivory rioting together in perfect
harm-many.

ATBOTL said...

There are plenty of pics of Asian rioters/looters. Asians have been the main rioters in the UK over the last 15 years.

The Bear said...

Rednecks, east coast guidos, military/police/firemen, and blue collar roughnecks relish fighting.

All marines discharging from the military are required to attend career transition classes. During the class I attended at Camp Pendleton, the LAPD recruited us really hard (3 days on, 4 days off work week). They were desperate for ass-kicking white guys.

Anonymous said...

Hindus, due to culture and low-testosterone, are not the type of people who seek conquest. They're more the equivalent of East Asiand or Eastern Euros, who immigrate for financial and academic reasons.

A lot of Hindus did show up in Britain during the 1970s, after they were expelled by the East African governments. A lot of Surinamese Hindus also made their way to the Netherlands. Both groups keep low profiles.

Anonymous said...

I'll bet when Germanic Barbarians ransacked Rome, many Roman citizens lost all respect for their own culture and authorities and joined the Germanics to loot and steal.

So many white britons... no jobs, no pride, no dignity, no help or guidance from white elites(who abandoned them and denonced them for any sign of white pride or nationalism), no stake in the NWO.
They feel alienated from Britain, and they've been drummed by both public education and pop culture to embrace stuff like this(Swedish but the same shit):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u-mihtgTm0

Well, white youths are sure BLANDA BLANDA with the blacks and being africanized and jamaicanized, mon!
Kingston Syndrome is the new Stockholm Syndrome.

What do you expect from a nation that now defines its culture and future this way?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvS2WoQd1og

(check 8:50)


From 'God Save the Queen' to 'god shave the queer'.

London Bridge Is Burning Down.

Anonymous said...

The Iranian asks Obama why the slaves never revolted in America. It's such a devastating question that Obama's Afrocentric buddy who was with him during the conversation suddenly stopped wearing his African medallion and disappeared from school, never to be heard from again.

Obama had never heard of Nat Turner?

Hunsdon said...

Anonymous at 6:59 said:

But then came consumerism, which said the purpose of business is market and sell whatever gives people the maximum amount of orgiastic pleasure, even if it coarsens the populace and turns them into barbarians. Give people fatty and sugary foods galore, porn, violent movies, moron music, trash/extreme TV, entertainment news, and etc.

Hunsdon replies:

I really quite liked your comment. I think the American mind has been poisoned by the US/Soviet, capitalist/communist, West/East false dichotomy. We think we're "free" because we're not "communist."

And your line about Sumeria and Consumeria? That's nice. It's nice enough that I didn't dub you "Anonydroid!"

Anonymous said...

Post some pictures of Asian rioters. All I see are blacks and Chavs.

The Asians, to the extent they're on the streets, are either onlookers or fighting to keep rioters out of their areas.

Anonymous said...

"When I worked club security in college, we worried much more about the drunken Irish kids. A brother who gets offended by something shows a definite emotional escalation that may end up in a brawl, but Irish kids, way more than any other ethnicity, minority or white, would sucker punch someone without any visible reason and a smile on their face."

Yeah, the Baldwin brothers are quite a crew.

ATBOTL said...

"A group of three Pakistanis, among many who were defending an Asian neighorhood, was run down and killed by a black rioter/driver."

A black man(or was it two?) was killed by Pakistanis in a little noticed race riot in Birmingham a few years back.

Anonymous said...

This is our white world on birth control.

We should have sent birth control to everyone else instead. They needed it more than we did.

Laban said...

"While some opportunist whites and Asians have joined the looting and general mayhem, these riots have been driven by black youth. Bradford, Oldham, Blackburn, Burnley, Tower Hamlets (large Muslim populations, the first four saw major rioting in 2001) are the dogs that haven't barked, if I can use what's probably an inappropriate phrase."

There have been incidents of gangs in London targeting whites and in some cases, not beating them up but humiliating them by stealing all their clothes.

Laban said...

While the BBC talk about 'kids' and 'young people', the 'community workers' they interview about the grievances and oppression of said youth are all black.

Laban said...

In March last year I finally found the names of the two people killed in the Handsworth riots ('uprising' if you're from the BBC) of 1985 - Kassamali Moledia, 38, and his brother Amir, 44 - subsequently airbrushed from history (someone finally updated Wikipedia about three weeks ago).

If they'd been killed by white people half of Handsworth would have been named after them by now. Instead they were forgotten.

But the demographics and street dynamics have changed in Birmingham. When Handsworth 2.0 was attempted in Lozells in 2005, it was innocent black people who ended up getting murdered.

Anonymous said...

The Derb, splendid as usual:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/274226/epitaph-britain-john-derbyshire

A taste:

"Plainly there are white kids among the rioters. Equally plainly, blacks are wildly over-represented. The population of the U.K. is two percent black. Does anyone think the proportion of black people among the rioters is two percent? It looks to me more like 60-70 percent."

Svigor said...

Population density? What's that? Not saying it's everything, but it should not be continually ignored in conversations like this.

On the other hand, though Sweden may not have the density that England does, some Euro states do. And they don't have the chav thing going on, as far as we know. I'm thinking it's not a coincidence that they speak English. So the English get the best of both worlds; the cultural rot emanating in English, and a population density to match the densest parts of Europe.

Svigor said...

Folks, remember, this is Steve Sailer's blog, so let's try to find a way to blame the English riots on the Jooooooooossss!

Good thing you guys aren't narcissists.

Simon in London said...

anon:
"Simon, rednecks and some blue collar guys are tough, but lots of Whiskey-type white guys are wimpy too and would run from a fight. White Americans are a mixed group. My sense is that the large majority of British whites have the street fighter in them. As a society, they're more alpha, on average, than American whites.

If you go to rural areas or the South, then the white population is probably more comparable to that of Britain.

From what I hear, Scots and Irish are especially street tough people."

You're right about the UK. I'm only really familiar with the Southern part of the US, what you say seems plausible although it doesn't fit stereotypes that English whites are tougher than Americans.

There are 'soft whites' in England (and small numbers even in Scotland, Northern Ireland etc among the upper-middle class), you find them working in the public sector, and amongst the 'metrosexual' upper middle class. White University students tend to be soft - that seems true of the US and elsewhere, also.

But the traditional working class are very tough, and a good chunk of the private sector business class are pretty tough too. The English seem much more aggressive than most Continental West Europeans, who have a tamed or domesticated air about them. And the Celtic fringe (Scots, Ulster, to some extent Welsh) & far-northern English 'Geordies' are much more aggressive again than the mainstream English.

Anonymous said...

We should have sent birth control to everyone else instead. They needed it more than we did.

Unfortunately, they wanted it less.

Anonymous said...

"I have never heard of a diaspora Hindu attacking a white native"

In New Jersey I've seen Indians attack and harass white women --- in a way not much different from blacks.

Anonymous said...

Someone called for evidence of "Asian" rioters? Read this article:

http://www.birminghammail.net/news/top-stories/2011/08/11/saltley-man-first-to-be-jailed-for-birmingham-riots-full-court-report-from-first-day-of-prosecutions-97319-29216078/

Anonymous said...

"Folks, remember, this is Steve Sailer's blog, so let's try to find a way to blame the English riots on the Jooooooooossss!"

Okay, I'll bite. Jews have been:

1. For massive immigration from the Third World.

2. Politically correct castration of white people.

3. Controllers of entertainment industry disseminating vile rap music and black-thug-is-cool image.

4. Prominent as lawyers and activists clamping down on any speech that dared to speak the truth cuz it's 'hateful'.

Anonymous said...

"Post some pictures of Asian rioters."

I hope it's as endearing as the Vancouver Chinese kid with the hockey stick.

Anonymous said...

"The Iranian asks Obama why the slaves never revolted in America."

They were outnumbered and outgunned. And white people--in the form of abolitionists--revolted in their stead and brought upon the Civil War.

But then, most peoples never revolted. Serfs didn't revolt, at least not enough to overthrow the system. People living under communism generally didn't revolt, even when tens of millions were dying.

Anonymous said...

Britain certainly stood alone during the Blitz. Or is that just more Allied war propaganda? If so, please do tell us how many of the Dominions were subjected to sustained bombing by the Luftwaffe

Remind me again, how many Axis countries were bombed by the RAF?

You cannot point to a war between Britain and Germany and say that "Britain stood alone". Standing alone implies you are greatly outnumbered, and the reality was that Britain was not outnumbered. This was a war between two fairly equal sides (in the period from June 1940 to June 1941)

You might as well say that "Britain stood alone" in its fight with the American colonialists.

Anonymous said...

"Britain stood alone"...

Couldn't it be argued that Germany stood alone too? Its only "ally" was the utterly useless Italians, who were more of a burden then anything else, while "alone" Britain had the unquestioned support of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, much of the empire and sympathy, support and aid from America. To imply Britain stood "alone" against Germany is to tacitly admit Britain couldn't handle Germany in a fair one on one fight. Not a very flattering admission when you think it through. Also Germany was very, very weak in naval power with very little sealift capacity. Britain had the English channel and a very strong navy, plus good numbers of Polish ex-pat soldiers and pilots and the Free French. Britain had also broken all the German codes with its ULTRA division - an incalcuable advantage and by 1940 was already ahead of Germany in aircraft production. It also had the benefit of radar. Germany had to expend considerable numbers of troops to hold down France, the low countries and much of Scandinavia. It also had to occupy Czechoslovakia. There were active underground resistance movements in all the occupied countries. Germany also had to keep a wary eye on the USSR too. The truth is the "alone" nonsense was really just a lot of propaganda - self-serving propaganada for Britain's political benefit. See the excellent book 1940 - myth and reality.

Anonymous said...

Reply to Laban:

What isn't shown in that deliberately cropped photo is that the thug making that young English man disrobe is black.

Anonymous said...

""The Iranian asks Obama why the slaves never revolted in America."

They were outnumbered and outgunned."

But were slaves really outnumbered? In many regions, they vastly outnumbered whites. In some states they were the majority. See, for example, South Carolina.

And "outgunned"? The primitive firearms of the 18th Century were not the decisive factor that military technology is today.

Anonymous said...

"But were slaves really outnumbered? In many regions, they vastly outnumbered whites. In some states they were the majority. See, for example, South Carolina."

But look at Haiti and Jamaica. When they REALLY outnumbered the whites, the latter were in big doo do.

I think another factor was blacks came from many different tribes--often mutually hostile--and so they weren't able to unite to form a common front.
Also, their basic needs were met, and the conditions of American slaves were not, materially anyway, necessarily worse than than that of most people around the world.
Notice even now, no American black wants to go live in another country, especially African ones.

Truth said...

"And "outgunned"? The primitive firearms of the 18th Century were not the decisive factor that military technology is today."

Yes they were, when the opposition was unarmed.

Anonymous said...

""And "outgunned"? The primitive firearms of the 18th Century were not the decisive factor that military technology is today."

Yes they were, when the opposition was unarmed."

In the 18th Century, it wouldn't have been difficult to seize the arms of a plantation owner, particularly given the slaves numerical advantage.

Truth said...

"In the 18th Century, it wouldn't have been difficult to seize the arms of a plantation owner, particularly given the slaves numerical advantage."

Certainly, as they left them lying around outside.

Anonymous said...

In the 18th Century, it wouldn't have been difficult to seize the arms of a plantation owner, particularly given the slaves numerical advantage.

err, no. Indians could conduct flash raids on white settlers, but not low iq blacks with no martial or organizational experience.

Anonymous said...

PS Britain was able to maintain pretty good control over the indian subcontinent with no more that 50,000 troops.

Anonymous said...

John Derbyshire estimates that blacks comprise about 2% of the British population but 60 - 70% of the rioters.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/274226/epitaph-britain-john-derbyshire#

Anonymous said...

Pakistanis and Indians Jailed for Starting Birmingham riots

http://www.birminghammail.net/news/top-stories/2011/08/11/saltley-man-first-to-be-jailed-for-birmingham-riots-full-court-report-from-first-day-of-prosecutions-97319-29216078/



...

Anonymous said...

Britain stood alone because it was geographically situated alone.
Had Britain been where France is and if France been where Britain is, Germany would have conquered Britain, and France would have been the lone great power resisting Nazism.

Kylie said...

"You cannot point to a war between Britain and Germany and say that 'Britain stood alone'."

And in fact, I didn't.

"Standing alone implies you are greatly outnumbered..."

Not necessarily.

"and the reality was that Britain was not outnumbered."

I didn't say it was.

Simon in London said...

anon:
"To imply Britain stood "alone" against Germany is to tacitly admit Britain couldn't handle Germany in a fair one on one fight. Not a very flattering admission when you think it through."

No one could handle Germany in a fair 1:1 fight. 100,000 US or Soviet soldiers wouldn't have done any better than 100,000 British soldiers against 100,000 Wehrmacht. Being not as good as the best military in the world at that time is no great cause for shame.

Anonymous said...

It wouldn't have been difficult for slaves to overpower their masters, even if their masters had a musket or pistol kept away somewhere. Slaves often had a numerical advantage and masters couldn't carry on and live without "letting down their guard," perhaps most of the time.

Also, Muslims are effectively unarmed against massively disproportionate American military firepower. And yet they rebel and fight.

Maybe the fact is that slaves in American lived relatively well and were generally content.