Shoot Criminals

Before you read this article below please note that poverty does not cause black criminal males to carry a gun ( a gun costs about 300 - 2000 pounds ), wear gold jewellery (thousands of pounds), diamond earings (thousands) and gold teeth (thousands) and designer trainers and clothes (thousands) and drive a flash car (tens of thousands) nor own a nice flat (hundreds of thousands).

Note also that the term 'black' applies to a whole range of people from a whole range of countries and a whole range of religions and cultures.

These figures need to be broken down to discover the people from those communities that are disproportionately involved in crimes, as saying they are 'black' is like saying the Albanian criminals in the UK are all 'British White' if they are given a British passport.

Yeah they are white, but they aint indigenous British.

The fact that immigrants who are not British by ethnicity are classified as British Whites means they and their crimes can be added to the crimes of the indigenous British people and used to inflate the crime figures.

The figures must be more specific if they are to be useful.

Black criminals wear bling, they are not poor.

There are not 'poor' criminals, because they use crime to get rich.

These black criminals choose to commit crimes to get rich and most are rich compared to most working class people in this country.

They are simply criminal shit people, not because they are black but because they are scum.

They are not poor people - most poor people, regardless of how poor they are, do not commit crimes.

Most Poor people are decent, honourable people including the 37,000 old poor mainly white people who die of cold and malnourishment in their own homes.

No black criminal has died of cold in Britain.

No black criminal has died of malnutrition.

Poverty is an excuse they use to sucker fucking idiot white liberals.

Whilst black criminals play the race card and bullshit poverty card for white liberal suckers, they target their own community as much as they target whites.

Black criminals are criminals because they choose to be criminals.

They dont deserve sympathy, they like all such criminals of all races need shooting after a quick trial.

The issue is simply that we ship into this country the shit of the world as well as decent immigrants.

Decent black people know who the shit are in their community and where in the world they came from, as we all do.

Its just that the law says 'if you point out where the shit people come from, then you are a racist and can be prosecuted' so therefore Rod Liddle makes a sweeping generalisation about all black people that is wrong.

The shit people come from specific shit countries with specific religions and specific cultures.

The decent black people in our country primarily come from specific countries with a specific culture and specific religions.

We know what ones they are - and so do the people who live near them, both black and white.

But because the law forbids us from identifying the shit people, then journalists like Rod Liddle use generalisations - the same generalisations that the crime figures do.

If the crime figures were broken down into national origins, religion and ethnic origins we would be able to identify the shit.

But that information is only useful if you intend to deny the shit people of the planet a right to enter this country, and as this country welcomes the vilest shit of the planet into our borders, then thats why the crime statistics generalise instead of being specific or useful.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6952298.ece


In 413BC a traveller sat down in a barber’s shop in Piraeus, the Athenian port, and readied himself for a shave. He commiserated with the locals for the loss of their recent military expedition to Syracuse. The horror dawned; the traveller was first with the news. The barber flung down his tools and ran to the city, crying the news. His reward? The Athenians refused to believe that their navy had been destroyed, that their sons and brothers were dead or working as slaves in Sicilian mines. As Plutarch tells us, the barber was “fastened to the wheel and racked”.

This is how we so often treat those who tell us the truth we do not want to hear. History is littered with examples of messengers being shot, tortured and pilloried, literally and metaphorically.

To quote Sophocles’ Antigone: “No one loves the messenger who brings bad news.” To misquote Corporal Jones: “We don’t like it up us.”

We assume that we are different from our forefathers; more tolerant and more willing to allow uncomfortable truths to be aired. We have a liberal democracy and we congratulate ourselves on a commitment to freedom of speech. Yet when the truth sits uncomfortably with our notions of what is right, when it clashes with our dearly held notions of tolerance, we are as squeamish as any of our ancestors. Few are as intolerant as the self-consciously tolerant.

Vitriol, if not bodily torture, awaited the columnist Rod Liddle who wrote on a blog for The Spectator this week: “The overwhelming majority of street crime, knife crime, gun crime, robbery and crimes of sexual violence in London is carried out by young men from the African-Caribbean community.”

A predictable storm engulfed Liddle, with accusations of racism flying. Yet here are the statistics from the Ministry of Justice.

Some 12 per cent of London’s population is black.

In 2007-08 black people accounted for 31.2 per cent of arrests for violence against the person;

31.4 per cent of arrests for sexual violence;

58.1 per cent of arrests for robbery;

29.8 per cent for theft and handling;

39.8 per cent for fraud and forgery

22.1 per cent for criminal damage,

38.7 per cent for drugs.

Liddle’s phrase “overwhelming majority” may be a distortion for effect, but there is undoubtedly some awkward reading in these figures for a society that wants to be colour blind, and has honed its righteous anti-racism. But what do we do with these figures? Stick our fingers in our ears and hum the National Anthem? Ignoring the truth is an insult to the victims and the perpetrators of these crimes. Both are products of something rotten in the state of urban black culture. Only by confronting the truth can we hope to address it.

But we draw away, afraid of the consequences of acknowledging the bald statistics. Truth meets our preconceptions and quails. In science, Mark Walport, director of the Wellcome Trust, describes this as “uncomfortable knowledge”: the idea that research can cause us to question how we order our society.

There is much uncomfortable knowledge to be found in genetics, and in our increasing understanding of the brain’s miraculous workings. Take the notion that men and women’s intelligence is different: women cluster around the average where men display more extremes of intelligence. Helena Cronin, a philosopher at the London School of Economics, calls it the “more dumb-bells, more Nobels” effect. I shudder at being the average shadow of more brilliant men, but I have no wish to shuffle the theory under a carpet and sit on it.

Our ever-deepening understanding of behavioural genetics throws up uncomfortable knowledge. It’s the old nature-nurture argument writ large, but with the implication that we are prisoners of our genes.

There is growing evidence, for example, that genes play a role in criminality: an idea that smacks dangerously of the determinism of Victorian phrenologists. A range of behavioural traits from depression to aggression has been linked to genes. A study in Nature this month found that obesity can be linked to a specific genetic defect.

Genetic research is in its relative infancy, and there is much still to understand about the interaction of our genes with our environment. But the implications are obvious and extreme. If intelligence is written in our genes, why aim for equal opportunities? Can criminals be culpable if they are genetically predisposed to be criminals? If genes are so dictatorial, what is free will? If fat is a genetic issue, sod it, I’ll have a Crunchie.

But there is a difference between the possession of uncomfortable knowledge and what we do with it. We can rise above our genetic inheritance and choose to have a society that celebrates the acquisition of knowledge, and the airing of truth, even when it hurts.

There seems to be a rising acceptance that unpalatable truths should be aired. Speech must be free, even where it is impolite to speak. A judge this week dismissed a case against a Christian hotelier couple accused of verbally abusing a Muslim guest. Their remarks were offensive, but not criminal. Sharon Vogelenzang told Ericka Tazi that her Islamic dress was a form of “bondage and oppression”. Less an uncomfortable truth, more an uncomfortable opinion, but one widely held.

We must fight against the type of dogma that does not allow itself to be challenged; whether it is of an isolationist Islam or Western middle-class cultural relativism. We must be braver about facing the truth, wherever it is found. A racist can look at the crime statistics and reach an abhorrent conclusion. A liberal can look at the same statistics and wonder how we can change them. Only a fool ignores them.