British Ask ‘Why,’ but Answers Are Unclear
By RAVI SOMAIYA
At the heart of a debate after the riots in Britain is the question of what drove even some previously law-abiding Britons to steal.
Second: You can make a tax deductible contribution via VDARE by clicking here. (Paypal and credit cards accepted, including recurring "subscription" donations.) UPDATE: Don't try this at the moment.
Third: send money via the Paypal-like Google Wallet to my Gmail address (that's isteveslrATgmail.com -- replace the AT with a @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.
You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.
Or you can send money via credit card (Visa, MasterCard, AmEx, Discover) with the industry-standard 2.9% fee. (You don't need to put money into your Google Wallet Balance to do this.)
Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).
Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here's how to do it.
(Non-tax deductible.)
Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)
Posts
54 comments:
The more interesting question is, why did some, who had the opportunity to loot, choose not to? That is, what restrained their behavior, since it clearly wasn't the police. Was it fear? Was it laziness? Was it an inner sense of morality? There surely were people who would have liked a free flat screen who didn't go out and help themselves to one. Why?
Believe it or not, the most deprived region of England is that idyllic holiday-spot Cornwall.
It has the highes unemployment and lowest wages in Britain.
Also very deprived are the former coal-mining towns of the Rhondda Valley in South Wales.
But neither of these areas saw wholesale looting.They are also some of the whitest areas in Britain.
I have never witnessed this type of mass looting/criminality 'riots' happening on the European continent.
Yes, hot-headed continentals do occasionally have some very violent bust-ups with the police, but these are always but always political battles fought over exclusively political causes.
The barbarism shown in modern Briatin, desn't belong to European civilisation.
Really, so you think it´s normal that people will steal if they get a chance ?
I don´t. Not people with a moral compass.
I found this strange:
An aspiring social worker, Natasha Reid, 24, turned herself in after stealing a $500 television.
Evidently the police had not identified Reid and were not looking for her, so why not simply return to the store and ask if she could return the television or pay for it? She felt remorse, so what further expiation does she expect from tossing herself into the over-stuffed maw of the justice system? Seems like pointless masochism to me, but I suppose that's what makes it newsworthy.
Let's see:
o Welfare, entitlement culture
o No fathers in the house
o Guns outlawed, so self-defense is impossible
o Police don't even carry firearms
So yes, because they can is the answer.
ntioco Dascalon asks
The more interesting question is, why did some, who had the opportunity to loot, choose not to? That is, what restrained their behavior, since it clearly wasn't the police. Was it fear? Was it laziness? Was it an inner sense of morality? There surely were people who would have liked a free flat screen who didn't go out and help themselves to one. Why?
Because they were not vibrant enough?
Or the man from Nantucket.
previously law-abiding Britons
That's making a big assumption.
I am curious about the riots in relation to Sailer's comments on most people simply volunteering to obey the law because there aren't enough police to make everyone behave. In England they have surveillance cameras everywhere. Even with masks on thugs should've realized someone could id them by features such as height, weight, clothing and hair. The rioters behavior indicates not only that the legal consequence of getting caught doesn't bother them enough but that the shame of other people knowing doesn't either. And, in the case of those who set fires, not even the thought that people could end up homeless or killed curtailed their actions.
I think we will soon be able to relax, however. It looks like having the ability to jam mobile communications like they did in SF this week is going to end up being the solution. Nevertheless, getting a glimpse at what certain segments of the population will do on a whim is as horrifying as a Stephen King novel.
T'is a puzzlement
All of Britain's problems are rooted in having an absolutely disastrous immigration policy and a bogus system for allowing third world non-white "refugees" into the country. Absent these people the situation would be very different.
Why does Ny Times keep eating its own vomit and feces? Political correctness makes a dog stupid and cowardly.
As for stealing, why did Wall Street banksters steal so much? Cuz they could.
Yes, unlike dogs and rioters, the politicians and the police were obviously unequipped to deal with situation.
Yes, we can!
Black riots typically stem from some ill happening to one of their leaders. Recently in GB, the "young father" (that's the best they can describe him??) Was shot by the evil police. Turns out the "young father" was a gun runner. Probably had sway in "the community". The blacks went nuts. Then the commie whites joined in.
Think MLK, think Rodney King. The latter due more to similar last name as the former. /s
Years back here in Chicago, when I had only a couple years on the force, we had a near riot. A wanted gang leader returned home to the projects. Officers pounced on him, he faught back and got maced. He was taken away to the local station. The project dwellers launched an attack. They gained enterence into the station but could not get into the holding facility. The blacks were pushed out and back up was called.
I was one of a hundred officers to respond. We had our helmets and batons ready. Michigan and Balbo style. They eventually backed down.
No,the punchline to that one is, "you probably could, but you have to pet him first". Oh, wait a minute. Wrong joke.
Who are these 'Britons' they are talking about.
All I could see was a lot of black dominated mobs.
Concerning the recent outbreak of youths playing "Knock-Out King" at the Wisconsin State Fair in Milwaukee. Please note that Wisconsin has not been an issuer of concealed weapons permits to ordinary law abiding citizens. (This will change very soon.)
I live in Oklahoma City and am familiar with the Oklahoma State fair in OKC and the Texas State fair in Dallas. I doubt any youths will be playing "Knock-Out King" at either location this fall since both states allow CCW permit holders to bring their equipment to the fair. The percentage of NAMs is higher in OKC & Dallas than it is in Milwaukee, but the "youths" in OK & TX understand that playing "Knock-Out King" down here also means simultaneously playing Russian Roulette. If you smack some guy upside the head down here, you stand a damn good chance of getting a 9 mm in the butt.
It's the problem of usandthemology. Us and them--or us vs them--is a big part of human psychology. Even people who condemn usandthemology are usandthemological, i.e. 'we who are opposed to usandthemism' vs 'they who are for usandthemism'.
The Right always looks for new enemies and usually targets outsiders or traitors. During the Cold War, it was Soviet commies and American pinkos who were the bad guys. (Traditionally, blacks and Jews figured prominently, but that became morally taboo.) After the Cold War, the Right constructed the bogeyman of 'Muslim Terrorists' and 'illegal aliens'
Now, these 'enemies' might pose a real threat or could be hyped-up fantasies. Real or imagined, the Right needs new enemies--the Other--to define itself against.
Same is true of the Left. To keep its engine going to justify morefuel for the fire, it needs to keep looking for new causes, new agendas, new conflicts to maintain the notion of 'us progressive good people' vs 'those evil reactionaries'. It used to be the Civil Rights Movement and Class Warefare. Now that blacks have won political/legal equality and that liberals/leftists are richer than conservatives, the holy causes are stuff like 'gay marriage' and 'social justice', which can mean just about anything.
It used to be blacks marching with signs, "I am a man." Now, it's black males rampaging entire blocks like morons, and white liberals calling it a desperate cry for 'equality'.
The Left also vilifies the Other--liberal support of bombing of Libya, for example--, but it prefers to find the biggest enemy within itself. The enemy is not the other race or tribe but the reactionaries within one's own tribe. Since one's own tribe is vilified, 'race-traitors' are the good guys while race-loyalists are the bad guys.
Partly, usandthemology is opportunism, but it's also a psychological need. Just as people are fixated with sports and games, they need to see the world in terms of A vs B, I vs you, good guy vs bad guy, us vs them. It clarifies things and gives one a sense of meaning in life.
Fist guy to be evicted following the riots is a white wigger type and his black girlfriend:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2024605/UK-riots-Daniel-Sartain-Clarkes-family-evicted-Wandsworth-Council.html
I'm confused.
Since the riots were quite obviously a righteous reaction to the hideous racism of Britain, why aren't all the righteous Britons of Color fleeing that accursed isle at once, and clamoring for asylum and refugee status in Mother Africa, where they will never have to experience the evils of racism ever again?
Recently in GB, the "young father" (that's the best they can describe him??) Was shot by the evil police. Turns out the "young father" was a gun runner. Probably had sway in "the community". The blacks went nuts. Then the commie whites joined in.
Interestingly, that gun-runner/drug-dealer was half Irish.
I remember reading somewhere that the Irish in England make up much of the white crime rate.
The white guy who mugged the Malaysian student with a gang of blacks was also Irish, if the name Reece Donovan is anything to go by.
This is not a simple black vs white issue - in fact, in Birmingham and Wolverhampton, where I have a lot of relatives, it was more blacks (and some poor whites) vs south asians. Most of the businesses looted were owned by asians. The 3 people who died there were asians out guarding their businesses, when a car driven by a black youth plowed into then. Asians have actively helped the police, with one asian camera crew actually giving a policeman a ride to chase down and arrest some looters.
In general, the hindus and sikhs in the UK do well in education and are relatively prosperous, and have assimilated well (unlike muslims from the subcontinent). Their anger against the looters has been quite intense, and most fault the police for not being tough enough.
The more interesting question is, why did some, who had the opportunity to loot, choose not to?
Believe it or not, there are people who realize that if everyone would start picking a free flat screen TV at every opportunity, then in no time there would be no flat screen TVs at all (or much of anything else, for that matter). And the thought is not particularly deep, so, however shocking it might sound to some, there are many people who understand the simple concept or behave accordingly.
Consider the sad plight of the American white low-life. He is not only remote from attractive urban looting opportunities (have you ever tried to loot a mall?), he is remote from his fellow white low-lifes.
For our white low-lifes are sprinkled, in their ill-kept apartments or their parents’ basements, in what are essentially neighborhoods of working families, no matter how low the average family income is.
Suppose an American white low-life is zonked out on booze or drugs and watching TV. He sees on TV something that offends his sense of how things should be. He is enraged. He dashes out the front door and yells, “dudes, let’s loot.”
The low-life looks around for fellow looters. The only person he sees is some lady who is watering her flowers and looking at him strangely. Somehow, it just doesn’t feel right. So he goes back inside and watches more TV.
I've heard the theory that a sense of private property, like higher average intelligence, is a product of your ancestors surviving ice ages. In Africa in 20,000 BC, if someone wanted a mango, they just went and picked one off the nearby tree - anyone could. At the same time, in Europe or North China, with the icey wind howling outside the cave and snow on the ground, it took effort, intelligence, and foresight to get a hold of one's *personal* potato (or whatever). So, modern blacks have more of a sense than whites do of, if there merchandise sitting there on a shelf, it's mine for the taking, why is everyone being so uptight. (anyone know who came up with this?)
Two implications of that:
(1) When blacks talk about the USA/Europe being "institutionally racist", this is one area where I think that they are correct. American/European laws presume private property, and that stealing is wrong. That is more of a white way of thinking - the system is, indeed, set up to white values, and against black values.
(2) Less of a sense of property is, along with higher impulsivity (to violence, sexuality, etc) and lower average intelligence, one more reason many/most blacks are probably not overall compatible with civilization.
To be fair about the racial angle, white Brits have quite a history of riots and other disturbances themselves:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spitalfield_Riots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Riots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Price_Riots,_1809
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_Riots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonypandy_Riot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invergordon_Mutiny
Seems to me, though, that a traditional British riot was most often the poor reacting to genuine deprivation. The left is still interpreting these modern riots using the same template, however, and ignoring the racial aggression and testosterone-driven will-to-dominance dimensions of recent events.
I would be interested in knowing if any of the sikhs used the swords and stuff and what happened if they did. They were certainly brandishing them for the cameras.
"He dashes out the front door and yells, “dudes, let’s loot.”
I thought they used Twitter or something.
Or the lady from Queets.
> Other councils vow to follow suit and boot out looters from homes as minister draws up plans to cut rioters' benefits
AMAZING. Brits, tell me is this real? Are they actually doubling down on cuts rather than giving in to the liberal narrative?
Anonymous said: "This is not a simple black vs white issue - in fact, in Birmingham and Wolverhampton, where I have a lot of relatives, it was more blacks (and some poor whites) vs south asians."
Aaaahhhhhhhh. Balkanization.
Consider the sad plight of the American white low-life. He is not only remote from attractive urban looting opportunities (have you ever tried to loot a mall?), he is remote from his fellow white low-lifes.
For our white low-lifes are sprinkled, in their ill-kept apartments or their parents’ basements, in what are essentially neighborhoods of working families, no matter how low the average family income is.
Suppose an American white low-life is zonked out on booze or drugs and watching TV. He sees on TV something that offends his sense of how things should be. He is enraged. He dashes out the front door and yells, “dudes, let’s loot.”
The low-life looks around for fellow looters. The only person he sees is some lady who is watering her flowers and looking at him strangely. Somehow, it just doesn’t feel right. So he goes back inside and watches more TV.
Good description.
There are a lot of White American lowlifes, but they're spread out in working class white and NAM areas. I've seen white thugs create trouble in otherwise respectable working class areas, but their numbers are still too small to effectively dominate the area. There might be small pockets of white lowlifes in rundown apartment complexes or dilapidated houses, but they're vastly outnumbered by working normal people.
Your blog post are more like screeds and whiny rants than they are analysis and a real attempt to understand an issue.
of course, when you're deadset against minorities, then of course, you don't care to understand anything.
you just want them out.
... Also very deprived are the former coal-mining towns of the Rhondda Valley in South Wales.
But neither of these areas saw wholesale looting.They are also some of the whitest areas in Britain ...
South Wales corresponds to Appalachian regions of USA. Relatively low income, not very vibrant.
After the Cold War, the Right constructed the bogeyman of 'Muslim Terrorists' and 'illegal aliens'
Muslim Terrorists and/or illegal aliens here are not bogemen. They are real, from Manhattan to Ft. Hood in Texas.
Why do you sympathize with murdering Muslim terrorists? Do they do what you fantasize about doing?
Most of the businesses looted were owned by asians.
You mean those "Asians" were Koreans or Viet Namese? Please stop using that pee cee "Asian" euphemism.
(1) When blacks talk about the USA/Europe being "institutionally racist", this is one area where I think that they are correct. American/European laws presume private property, and that stealing is wrong.
Correct. "Institutionally racist" = not enough levelling down and sharin' da loot.
@Ian, your climate theory does not explain that Hindus and Sikhs have zero looters and rioters, despite evolving in the warm climate of India
"Your blog post are more like screeds and whiny rants than they are analysis and a real attempt to understand an issue."
Puh leez! Sailer understands perfectly. We had a safe, functioning country with a generally good economy. Then some of the white American elite got the idea to share this with the vibrant peoples from around the world. Whether you have a mono-theory re globalism or believe it was done mainly by politicians to get democratic voters and businessmen to get cheaper labor, it's plain to see these people couldn't have landed in the US without some help.
The root of the problem: the first group of whites who legislated for any group of developing world immigrants at any time for any reason no matter what the consequences to their fellow American citizens. Think of the immigrant populations here along with the various challenges for policing and fitting them into the economy as symptoms.
David Davenport: You mean those "Asians" were Koreans or Viet Namese? Please stop using that pee cee "Asian" euphemism.
Actually, since there are negligible numbers of East Asians in the UK, the term "Asians" there invariably refers to South Asians, such as Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims, as should have been abundantly obvious from all news stories and blogsite comments.
Ignorant American reactionaries are such total 'tards...
"Most of the businesses looted were owned by asians.
You mean those "Asians" were Koreans or Viet Namese? Please stop using that pee cee "Asian" euphemism."
In the UK the term "Asians" primarily refers to people from the sub-continent - Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. Regardless of how it's used in the States or across the Atlantic, it's not a PC euphemism at all, but a useful catch-all term.
"...their numbers are still too small to effectively dominate the area."
I guess that's my main point. Whether looting spreads by Twitter or viva voce, density matters. The much higher rates of criminal behavior among certain ethnic groups has more than a straightforward proportional effect on neighborhood norms and behavior. When criminality reaches a certain level, it pushes many neighborhoods composed of these groups into marginally civilized conduct in normal times and over the edge into pre-civilization in extreme circumstances. The lowlifes do not have to be a majority, if they are violent. Violent minorities dominate ill-organized societies.
like the dogs in the old joke
No. Because he knows he's going to lick your face next!!
I love that joke. It's right up there with the old Pryor joke, "damn, this water's cold..."
Your blog post are more like screeds and whiny rants than they are analysis and a real attempt to understand an issue.
Whereas your comment is deep and content-rich.
"@Ian, your climate theory does not explain that Hindus and Sikhs have zero looters and rioters, despite evolving in the warm climate of India"
(1) It is my understanding that the subcontinent was settled (and resettled) from the Northwest long after the last ice age ended. Maybe I'm being super psuedo-scientific here, but my hunch is, given their average intelligence, that the forward castes' ancestors saw plenty of snow in their day.
(2) Hindus and Sikhs in the UK (and North America) tend to be successful and law-abiding, yes. But there is a selection effect, in that they are typically more motivated, educated, and intelligent than their compatriots back home. India proper has no shortage of crime and riots.
(3) Much is made of the higher crime rate of Muslim subcontintentals in the UK, vs Hindus and Sikhs. I am not convinced that they are coming from a genotypically homogenous population, however.
Just as I am convinced that the former East Germans are less efficient and intelligent than the former West Germans in part because they carry a fair amount of Russian genes, I suspect that Muslims in the subcontinent carry more genetic material from the Muslim invaders of ~ five hundred years ago than non-Muslims do. Muslims in India do test at a notably lower IQ than Hindus as whole do, and it was my impression while in India that, even clothes and facial hair aside, one could spot often Muslim men: they had a thicker, more menacing jaw, and more of a blank scowl on their face.
"of course, when you're deadset against minorities, then of course, you don't care to understand anything.
you just want them out."
Nah, we just want them burning your neighborhood.
Ian,
East Germany is the seat of the former Prussia - which was the leading state of Germany.
In fact the modern state of Germany (only established in the 1870s, and which rocked the world with its wars in quick succession), was merely Prussia writ large.
Before reunification East Germany was noted for its advanced industries, a firm called 'robotron' was prominent.
Where you get this idea about 'Russian genes' from I don't know.
This is not a simple black vs white issue - in fact, in Birmingham and Wolverhampton, where I have a lot of relatives, it was more blacks (and some poor whites) vs south asians. Most of the businesses looted were owned by asians.
I'm a bit wary of this - everywhere else it was large chain stores that were being robbed and even very proximate South Asian run businesses seem relatively untouched, which makes sense in an environment where there are threats of retaliation by their small businessmen and their (sometimes dodgy) relatives, rather than the "we'll just collect the insurance and leave it up to the police" attitude of chain store owners (and White small businessmen). Plus the fact that chain stores have more of the stuff the youth want (they don't sell curry, Indian gold jewellery, saris or tobacco and beer but consumer goods desirable to young kids) although I could imagine some office licences would be hit relatively hard, since the looters would want alcohol and cigarettes.
The "Black vs Asian" angle sounds suspicously like pseudo-victimology to me.
I remember reading somewhere that the Irish in England make up much of the white crime rate.
Self identified White Irish seem to do better in outcomes than White British, on average, if I remember rightly from the ONS (Office for National Statistics) reports, but of course that doesn't necessarily include all people with Irish ancestry or a surname and compares Irish people against all British people, not the ones in similar regions.
Anonymous @ 11:52 pm
Thank you for the beginner's history lesson.
(1) In the crazy times of the Summer of 1945, many of the more enterprising Prussians fled West, thinking (correctly) that they would be safer in Western hands than Soviet.
(2) "Before reunification East Germany was noted for its advanced industries" - maybe compared to Bulgaria or something. I don't think many folks would have made such a note in comparison to the FRG.
(3) " Where you get this idea about 'Russian genes' from I don't know."
Try Googling "russian germany rape 1945". I get about five million hits. The common estimate seems to be about two million rapes.
"@Ian, your climate theory does not explain that Hindus and Sikhs have zero looters and rioters, despite evolving in the warm climate of India"
Indian Hindu names were among lists of those who have been arrested for looting.
"Amerpreet Gill, aged 23, of Trafalgar Road, Smethwick, and Gurmeet Tarmeet, 35, of Warwick Road, Sparkhill, who were also charged with burgling JD Sports, were remanded for a week."
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/
Ian,
What makes you think that any possible impregnations by Russian invaders were carried to term?
- Abortion techniques were reliable in 1945, and I'm sure any number of German doctors would have terminated such a pregnancy.
@ATBOTL wrote -
"Amerpreet Gill, aged 23, of Trafalgar Road, Smethwick, and Gurmeet Tarmeet, 35, of Warwick Road, Sparkhill, who were also charged with burgling JD Sports, were remanded for a week."
--
Gill is a Sikh name and Gurmeet is also a Sikh name
And in Canada, Sikhs have developed an underclass
So no Hindu names yet
Yeah, those are Sikhs.
Compare to British Hindus, Sikhs are more likely to be working to midde class.
Reply to Ian:
I would mention that cousin marriage is very common in Pakistan, and throughout the Arab and muslim world. I think this is a factor in I.Q.'s as well.
Post a Comment