[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Sounds good to me ;)

[Jeme A Brelin]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, J Henshaw wrote:
> And this is a known result of multiculturalism, matter of fact Lincoln
> wanted to send all the Africans back to their homeland. Probably why
> he was killed.

Surely you don't mean that last sentence.

I recommend you look into who was truly to benefit from Lincolns death and
then try to work your way back and see if you can see who might have been
responsible and why.  As always, follow the money.

> I am using his example to make half my point anyway,  the proliferation of
> black on white violence
[and] 
> fbi.gov will show the massively skewed proportion of black on white
> violence.
> But I know there is both kinds,  and it is all wrong of course.
> But a liberal will not admit it is skewed heavily in one direction.
> This is why I use terms like "mental block".

Do you consider me "a liberal"?

I'll admit that the mid-range violent crimes (non-domestic assault, armed
robbery, etc.) are committed, in this country, predominantly by the
so-called people of color.  Domestic abuse is predominantly committed by
whites, as are serial killing and mass-murder.

I interpret this information to mean that individuals of all races are
potentially violent.  However, there is clearly a relationship between
race and type of violent crime.

When I look at the type of crime, I tend to look at the reward for
committing that crime.  Seral killing, mass murder, and domestic abuse are
all assertions of power and control.  Assault is the act of the
insecure.  Robbery is the act of the poor and desperate.

So, can we say that white people feel the need to show dominance and
non-whites feel insecure, poor and desperate?

Not quite, we're only half-way there.

Non-whites make up the majority of the poorest half of the population.  
Whites make up the majority of the wealthiest half.

If we apply this informaion, we can make the following substitution:

Wealthy people feel the need to show dominance and the non-wealthy feel
insecure, poor and desperate.

That seems like a pretty easy thing to believe.  I mean, it's almost
self-evident.

So the question here is not why blacks commit more assualts and robberies
or why whites commit more mass murders and domestic assaults, but why the
poor aren't white and the white aren't poor.

And I think it's fairly obvious.  It's because the whites come from a
tradition of property covetousness that allows them to assert dominion
over land, animals and, in some cases, other people; a tradition that
rewards greed and selfishness and the accumulation of power to coerce.

It's more like class warfare than culture clash.

> He was 20 years of age and she was 13

But did they have intercourse?

> He was a home invader, he had no permission to be there.

Does the girl not have permission to invite people into her home?  Or does
she just not have permission to invite black men into her home?

> I point it out ( race) only because it is politically incorrect to do
> so.

How about pointing things out because they advance or support a particular
idea, rather than doing so because they needlessly irritate (and, in
essense, that's all political correctness is; an attempt to avoid needless
irritation)?

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org