I'm not exactly disputing your thesis and anyway I'm not in a position to bandy statistics with you but it's important to factor in various things that might distort them - at least to some extent:
* the British criminal justice system is massively corrupted by institutional fear of 'Islamophobia'. Witness the scandal of young girls being trafficked by Pakistani taxi-driver gangs in Rotherham, Rochdale, Telford, Oldham and elsewhere.
* also - because of this fear - certain ethic-related crimes won't be in the stats: honour killings and forced marriages for example.
* the British police and CPS is possibly the most useless in the world at the business of catching and convicting criminals (detection: something like 5%; conviction: around 1%), If it's hard to detect, it won't get detected.
That's a possibility. But as I mentioned in the article, why would the authorities be concerned about Muslims looking bad but not about Blacks looking bad?
Your statement is only valid if we know the true rate of black crime and not just the reported rate.
There was an interview on Triggernometry some time ago in which a former policeman stated bluntly that he was not allowed to arrest black people around Victoria station, because it would “look bad”.
Instead to “balance the racial books” he was asked to investigate burglaries because they were known to be committed by a higher ratio of whites (violent street crime being a much more the choice of Afro Caribbean criminals)
If this kind of logic persists on a large scale then the black crime figures, while high, are under reported by a large margin and already reflect, as much as the police dare, a deliberately biased sample of criminals.
Today, I saw that a Tory MP was forced to apologize for saying there were no-go areas in the UK, particularly in London and Birmingham. My understanding is these areas are majority Muslim. As an American, such enclaves (though they are not Muslim) in this country are under policed and as a result would not produce prison statistics commensurate with crime.
What I wonder is do Black Britains form a sufficient majority/plurarlity in any place of sufficient size to create a no-go zone where crime would then go similarly unreported?
This is not even an argument; it's just a non-sequitor. The fact that blacks have high official crime rates does not mean that the official crime rate does not underestimate their actual crime rate.
An actual way of addressing the claim is to see whether we have evidence of police not prosecuting Muslims because of political concerns. The fact is that we do have exactly that evidence in Rotherham, Rochdale, Teldford, Oxford and a list that stretches into the dozens. Which is more likely: (a) the police only go out of their way not to arrest Muslims for child rape or (b) they do the same for other crimes, but these are not shocking enough for the press to belatedly expose them and force them to lock up a tiny fraction of the criminals?
I wondered if the authorities WERE concerned about blacks looking bad and that while the figure of 2.4 is higher than whites, it possible that the real figure is even higher.
Fair question. I can only guess but my instinct is that they ARE.....but that black crime is so rampant that even political correctness can only mask this a bit? Al;so my point about detection....maybe black crime is easier to detect?
Noah, what makes you think they aren't treating blacks more leniently too? Studies in America show blacks are treated more leniently and even so are massively overrepresented in crime stats.
In Britain, a lot of crime has been effectively decriminalised. Prosecutions rates for stealing bicycles may actually be less than 1%. Police will literally refuse to open a case even if your bike has a tracker on it and you can show them where it is. To get caught and jailed, you basically have to commit a crime on CCTV so the police don't have to do any work. These are the kind of crimes blacks are prone to do. Not just because of intelligence, but also other personality traits.
Nevertheless, the likeliest explanation is that actual black crime rates are simply higher than those of official statistics, just like all other ethnic minorities.
Exactly. The British police seem like nothing more than the enforcement arm of DEI on the population. The grooming scandal is the perfect example of their anti-white practices.
british muslims are notably more socially conservative that those in france and germany on the pew surveys last i checked. it's indicative of less integration and that was my anecdotal experience when i visited europe
I believe Hispanic crime rates in the US are also surprisingly low when you factor in age structure and IQ disparities. I was wondering if higher religiosity/conservatism might have an effect there as well.
Solid article in any case. Finding some way to ameliorate the violent crime disparities seen in other European muslim populations would be a godsend.
Hispanic crime is low compared to Blacks, but high compared to Whites. Hispanics have over double the age-adjusted homicide rates of White Americans: https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/29/5/437
IQ is inversely correlated with criminality to a significant degree within groups, so by default you'd expect lower-IQ groups to have more criminality. (Not sure why the correlation exists- could be poor impulse control, lack of other career paths, or smarter criminals just not getting caught- but regardless it's a pretty robust observation.)
If your not measuring IQ then your not fully measuring criminality. It would be like comparing criminality but controlling for violent tendency. One informs the other.
Also, IQ is an intrinsic attribute of a population which informs their character, but all peoples age. If you for every defining differences between populations then you erase the categories your trying to measure.
I would expect South Asian Muslims to have a relatively low crime rate. They have lived under the State monopoly on violence for a long time — longer than most Europeans. So they should generally exhibit a low level of male violence and a high level of deference to authority.
The main exception would be people from frontier areas, where the State has historically been weak or nonexistent (e.g., Pashto-speakers and Afghans in general).
There is often an assumption that Muslims would be a lot better if they could be persuaded to give up Islam. The reverse would actually happen. They would be worse. Conservative Muslims have lower crime rates than secular Muslims.
Religion is part of the "extended phenotype." If we secularize people, we are removing some of the checks and balances that help them to live and reproduce.
Indeed. Low IQ people tend to assimilate to the norms of the native low iq population.
The same could be said on the high end. Urban professional immigrants assimilate to the culture of native urban professionals, which is a specific subculture.
If someone stops going to Mosque and starts listening to gangsta rap it’s not going to be an improvement.
I'm thinkng of John born in alabama who decides to marry jane and they're both converts to the faith. Now americans switch religions like they switch jobs but the point being, is the plan here to kick out white people who pick the wrong religion? distinct from whether you think they *should want* to move to saudi arabia.
“Muslims actually don’t commit more crime because some of them are acually British Nationals and some only become Muslim after they commit their crimes!”
Firstly there is no such thing as British Muslims. Contradiction in terms since Christianity is an integral part of the British identity.
Secondly, Muslims and the subsequent ethnic groups that Islam covers are arrested and charged less because the state is terrified of being called racist cause their all shitlibs. The classic case of something like this is Telford.
Basically. Most brits aren’t British because they have been completely deracinated and deterritorialised. They’ve been cut off from their traditions and are now adrift, victim to whoever decides to mold them.
Europe used to be pagan, but then became Christian. When that happened a new Europe was created. Related but not the same. The more drastic the change the harder it is to be successfully done.
In response to the case of black crime being reported, I would say that this is massively under reported. I don’t trust these statistics at all. There is no reason why they wouldn’t be cooked since we know who controls the institutions.
I always wonder when I look at these statistics why there is no such thing as a “Hindu crime rate” in any of the rhetoric? The numbers are there for everyone to see. Why does it suddenly become a “south Asian” or just “Asian” demographic when there is such a drastic difference in behaviors and outcomes between different religions?
Who’s we? Your country’s government clearly wants them. Hindus are not, last I checked, an illegally immigrating population in any country across the world despite being a highly persecuted and hounded minority in many of them.
Because there are so few Hindus and Sikhs in the UK - 2.5% and 0.9% . Also there are a large number of black British who convert to Islam and very, very few who convert to Hindu, Sikh or Jewish
That’s quite some rationalization. I don’t think most Indian people would appreciate the conflating of Hindu religion with the nationality. But I do wonder, are all the Hindus that emigrated from India from “top breeds” of Hindus according to you? How do you make that distinction exactly? And aren’t other religions and countries subject to the same selection?
I’m sure you have very well substantiated reasons for calling India a shithole, right? You’ve surely looked in detail at all the crime rates, you’ve visited the country, lived with the people you talk about, right? At least talked to them a few times? You wouldn’t be just talking out of your ass about people you hardly know anything about, right?
Very funny how the crime rates of every other religious group, one way or another, are because of their beliefs but for Hindus they are despite their beliefs.
Of course the "top breeds" statement isn't true - Large number of untouchables (Dalit) moved to the UK because they were treated far better here and had a chance of getting better jobs than in India
The crime rates for all groups is mainly due to a variety of heritable factors, as well as age structure of the population.
Indians are highly genetically diverse with lower castes having lower IQ and bad crime rates and higher castes having lower crime and higher IQ. Most immigration from India to the West comes from higher castes.
India is a disgusting shithole where people worship rats and celebrate shit. The crime rate against those society doesn't care for, like dalits, poors, women is probably well under-reported. you aren't known for sexual harassment and rape for nothing. and the pathetic pining after white women. I get you fancy you're going to be treated as better than muslims or something which is what your silly little comment appears to be geared towards. In no uncertain terms, Hinduism is the most filthy and disgusting religion in the history of all religions and there has never been anything more embarrassing or disgusting than Hinduism. I'd rather have a kenyan in canada than one of you. Has no place in the west imo. Please stay in India and stop trying to ruin the west with your presence thank you. There is a reason you crawl to it, and abandon your own people in droves, we see through it.
Well, I must say, this is very helpful. Now I won’t try to pretend there’s some reasonable argument hidden deep behind that naked faced hatred.
My religion worships all nature and reality itself so, truly, well spotted that we do worship rats as well. I can tell that numbers really aren’t your strong suit but please try to keep up a little- by every measurement my people are making the west a better and not a worse place. May I remind you that westerners literally searched the entire world trying to reach my ancestors? They weren’t fleeing bad circumstance, they specifically wanted to reach India so badly that they tried to circumnavigate the world and mistook other peoples as Indians. You can’t possibly know what real ruin is until you study what the west has done to my homeland.
But if you insist on a race to the bottom, by all means, drive all the Hindus out of your country. I am sure they will be better off in the long run. And rest assured, no one is asking you to treat anyone any better. You seem quite incapable of it anyway, and frankly some abominations in this world are better left to the judgement of devas and danavas. I can only wish you luck when it catches up to you.
The west had already reached India long before they landed in America, what they wanted was to find a more efficient route for more profitable spice trade.
Indian immigration is not making the west better. They are not as bad as other immigrant groups, but they still constitute economic competition for natives, vote overwhelmingly left and for their own interests above the native interests, are not culturally compatible. They are just different and generally not wanted.
India was not an impressive civilization compared to the west before colonialization, and Britain did not "ruin" it, quite the opposite. If India was so good before, why was it utterly dominated by comparatively tiny group of British? See the video below for the numbers on this history:
Some of the comments here are remarkably crude and only worth ignoring.
But, though it is true that the British had a problematic record in India, the record of the pre-British Empire Indians is probably even worse. The Muslim genocides against Hindus are the most salient episode -- Will Durant thought this constituted the worst mass murder in human history. The inability of non-Muslim Indians to mount a defense against these monsters was a key factor. A government that allows its people to be murdered, en masse, again and again is the worst kind of government there is, short of a government that does the mass murders itself (e.g., the USSR and Germany under the National Socialists).
Without Western technology, India today would be undergoing mass starvation. Like all non-Western countries, it owes most of what it has to the culture of the West.
Nothing to disagree with here, except the last statement. We have had more than a millennium of foreign rule. We fought it off as much as possible but that kind of onslaught does breed a certain amount of dejected complacency in people. You make the best of what you have and you hope to improve what you can. In strictly material terms and due to the technological advantage of the west, yes, India owes most of what it currently has to the west, and the average Indian is grateful to the west for it too. But I shouldn’t forget all the stipulations in making that statement. The wealth that was siphoned out of India has played a significant part in the development of that technological advantage. And on the other hand, India is rapidly moving towards becoming its own independent entity that could boast of its own achievements again. These things cannot be minimized or ignored.
See, Carl, the only acceptable number for non-native Brits, when it comes to crime statistics is zero. Null. N/A. There are already local criminals - no need to add to the weights. The rest of your opus - which sounds like “count your blessings, it could have been worse” - belongs to the garbage bin.
It would be nice if this is the case. It depresses me that we might be importing large numbers of relatively low IQ criminals into Britain. If only the former is the case, and they make up for it by being more conscientious etc., then it's not so tragic. Reducing our social capital is still a bad idea but at least things might not be quite as bad as I'd thought. Maybe you should have substitled this post as: Things might not be quite as awful as some non-Muslim British people suspect.
This is a genuine surprise but I suspect there is an undercount in south asian Muslim crime and a far greater undercount in black crime. There probably is something of an undercount in white crime as well but perhaps less so. People are afraid to be called racist.
I think there is something really warped in the police/judicial system which is preventing them from nailing enough criminals and also punishing them and incapacitating them like they should be. This is going to be potentially a lot more disastrous for everyone involved and more than Muslims or blacks or racism, I blame the judicial system. Unfortunately it seems british people in general don't want to attend to this issue.
Low iq doesn’t automatically lead to crime. It does so in modern western contexts.
To the extent low iq immigrants assimilate to western culture that can increase crime. Assimilation doesn’t automatically mean assimilation to middle class values, it can easily mean assimilation to underclass values.
To the extent that foreign cultures control underclass behavoir better such assimilation will be a negative.
If the conversions to islam were drastic enough to skew the numbers of Muslim representation in prison, why is the dataset of “no religion” virtually unchanged?
I'm not exactly disputing your thesis and anyway I'm not in a position to bandy statistics with you but it's important to factor in various things that might distort them - at least to some extent:
* the British criminal justice system is massively corrupted by institutional fear of 'Islamophobia'. Witness the scandal of young girls being trafficked by Pakistani taxi-driver gangs in Rotherham, Rochdale, Telford, Oldham and elsewhere.
* also - because of this fear - certain ethic-related crimes won't be in the stats: honour killings and forced marriages for example.
* the British police and CPS is possibly the most useless in the world at the business of catching and convicting criminals (detection: something like 5%; conviction: around 1%), If it's hard to detect, it won't get detected.
That's a possibility. But as I mentioned in the article, why would the authorities be concerned about Muslims looking bad but not about Blacks looking bad?
Your statement is only valid if we know the true rate of black crime and not just the reported rate.
There was an interview on Triggernometry some time ago in which a former policeman stated bluntly that he was not allowed to arrest black people around Victoria station, because it would “look bad”.
Instead to “balance the racial books” he was asked to investigate burglaries because they were known to be committed by a higher ratio of whites (violent street crime being a much more the choice of Afro Caribbean criminals)
If this kind of logic persists on a large scale then the black crime figures, while high, are under reported by a large margin and already reflect, as much as the police dare, a deliberately biased sample of criminals.
Today, I saw that a Tory MP was forced to apologize for saying there were no-go areas in the UK, particularly in London and Birmingham. My understanding is these areas are majority Muslim. As an American, such enclaves (though they are not Muslim) in this country are under policed and as a result would not produce prison statistics commensurate with crime.
What I wonder is do Black Britains form a sufficient majority/plurarlity in any place of sufficient size to create a no-go zone where crime would then go similarly unreported?
They are heavily concentrated in London and a few other cities.
This is not even an argument; it's just a non-sequitor. The fact that blacks have high official crime rates does not mean that the official crime rate does not underestimate their actual crime rate.
An actual way of addressing the claim is to see whether we have evidence of police not prosecuting Muslims because of political concerns. The fact is that we do have exactly that evidence in Rotherham, Rochdale, Teldford, Oxford and a list that stretches into the dozens. Which is more likely: (a) the police only go out of their way not to arrest Muslims for child rape or (b) they do the same for other crimes, but these are not shocking enough for the press to belatedly expose them and force them to lock up a tiny fraction of the criminals?
I wondered if the authorities WERE concerned about blacks looking bad and that while the figure of 2.4 is higher than whites, it possible that the real figure is even higher.
Fair question. I can only guess but my instinct is that they ARE.....but that black crime is so rampant that even political correctness can only mask this a bit? Al;so my point about detection....maybe black crime is easier to detect?
Yes, in theory this could be happening as well.
Noah, what makes you think they aren't treating blacks more leniently too? Studies in America show blacks are treated more leniently and even so are massively overrepresented in crime stats.
More leniently? Can you point me to the studies you have in mind?
They are not concerned about minority criminals in general, it's just the black criminals are dumber so they get caught more often?
In Britain, a lot of crime has been effectively decriminalised. Prosecutions rates for stealing bicycles may actually be less than 1%. Police will literally refuse to open a case even if your bike has a tracker on it and you can show them where it is. To get caught and jailed, you basically have to commit a crime on CCTV so the police don't have to do any work. These are the kind of crimes blacks are prone to do. Not just because of intelligence, but also other personality traits.
Nevertheless, the likeliest explanation is that actual black crime rates are simply higher than those of official statistics, just like all other ethnic minorities.
Blacks and Muslims in Britain have similar average IQs. See the two studies I linked.
Because blacks commit crimes that are hard to cover up e.g. murder. Plus, they are more fragmented as a group due to commonly-absent fathers
Exactly. The British police seem like nothing more than the enforcement arm of DEI on the population. The grooming scandal is the perfect example of their anti-white practices.
british muslims are notably more socially conservative that those in france and germany on the pew surveys last i checked. it's indicative of less integration and that was my anecdotal experience when i visited europe
I believe Hispanic crime rates in the US are also surprisingly low when you factor in age structure and IQ disparities. I was wondering if higher religiosity/conservatism might have an effect there as well.
Solid article in any case. Finding some way to ameliorate the violent crime disparities seen in other European muslim populations would be a godsend.
Hispanic crime is low compared to Blacks, but high compared to Whites. Hispanics have over double the age-adjusted homicide rates of White Americans: https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/29/5/437
Factoring in IQ disparities is not appropriate. Controlling for age makes sense when comparing criminality between groups but not IQ.
IQ is inversely correlated with criminality to a significant degree within groups, so by default you'd expect lower-IQ groups to have more criminality. (Not sure why the correlation exists- could be poor impulse control, lack of other career paths, or smarter criminals just not getting caught- but regardless it's a pretty robust observation.)
If your not measuring IQ then your not fully measuring criminality. It would be like comparing criminality but controlling for violent tendency. One informs the other.
Also, IQ is an intrinsic attribute of a population which informs their character, but all peoples age. If you for every defining differences between populations then you erase the categories your trying to measure.
Where is the evidence that Asians have a lower IQ?!?
It's not "Asians," it's Pakistanis, etc.
I would expect South Asian Muslims to have a relatively low crime rate. They have lived under the State monopoly on violence for a long time — longer than most Europeans. So they should generally exhibit a low level of male violence and a high level of deference to authority.
The main exception would be people from frontier areas, where the State has historically been weak or nonexistent (e.g., Pashto-speakers and Afghans in general).
There is often an assumption that Muslims would be a lot better if they could be persuaded to give up Islam. The reverse would actually happen. They would be worse. Conservative Muslims have lower crime rates than secular Muslims.
Religion is part of the "extended phenotype." If we secularize people, we are removing some of the checks and balances that help them to live and reproduce.
Indeed. Low IQ people tend to assimilate to the norms of the native low iq population.
The same could be said on the high end. Urban professional immigrants assimilate to the culture of native urban professionals, which is a specific subculture.
If someone stops going to Mosque and starts listening to gangsta rap it’s not going to be an improvement.
No, its that low IQ people are similar and so their aggregate behavior (aka "culture") is compatible.
I don't care if their crime rates are low. They don't belong in our nations.
"I don't care if their crime rates are low. They don't belong in our nations."
Excellent point. One not made nearly enough.
This is a valid argument but what would you say about native white converts who mate with themselves. Do they get expelled for converting?
"This is a valid argument but what would you say about native white converts who mate with themselves. Do they get expelled for converting?"
Why wouldn't they want to go with those they mate with? But send them along.
I'm thinkng of John born in alabama who decides to marry jane and they're both converts to the faith. Now americans switch religions like they switch jobs but the point being, is the plan here to kick out white people who pick the wrong religion? distinct from whether you think they *should want* to move to saudi arabia.
"Now americans switch religions like they switch jobs but the point being, is the plan here to kick out white people who pick the wrong religion?"
No, absolutely not. People should be able to have their beliefs, thoughts, and ideas.
But I am an atheist, so religion means very little to me.
“Muslims actually don’t commit more crime because some of them are acually British Nationals and some only become Muslim after they commit their crimes!”
Firstly there is no such thing as British Muslims. Contradiction in terms since Christianity is an integral part of the British identity.
Secondly, Muslims and the subsequent ethnic groups that Islam covers are arrested and charged less because the state is terrified of being called racist cause their all shitlibs. The classic case of something like this is Telford.
Does this mean there is no such thing as a british atheist/agnostic as it seems most brits are now.
Basically. Most brits aren’t British because they have been completely deracinated and deterritorialised. They’ve been cut off from their traditions and are now adrift, victim to whoever decides to mold them.
Europe used to be pagan, but then became Christian. When that happened a new Europe was created. Related but not the same. The more drastic the change the harder it is to be successfully done.
In response to the case of black crime being reported, I would say that this is massively under reported. I don’t trust these statistics at all. There is no reason why they wouldn’t be cooked since we know who controls the institutions.
(())
I always wonder when I look at these statistics why there is no such thing as a “Hindu crime rate” in any of the rhetoric? The numbers are there for everyone to see. Why does it suddenly become a “south Asian” or just “Asian” demographic when there is such a drastic difference in behaviors and outcomes between different religions?
We don't want any of them
Who’s we? Your country’s government clearly wants them. Hindus are not, last I checked, an illegally immigrating population in any country across the world despite being a highly persecuted and hounded minority in many of them.
The British public. Our government increasingly refuses to enact our wishes hence the race riots last summer.
Illegal or not we don't want you. I am utterly indifferent to your supposed struggles elsewhere.
Because there are so few Hindus and Sikhs in the UK - 2.5% and 0.9% . Also there are a large number of black British who convert to Islam and very, very few who convert to Hindu, Sikh or Jewish
3.4% is far too high, it should be 0%
It's there back in the shithole known as india. the UK selects for the top breeds of Hindus.
That’s quite some rationalization. I don’t think most Indian people would appreciate the conflating of Hindu religion with the nationality. But I do wonder, are all the Hindus that emigrated from India from “top breeds” of Hindus according to you? How do you make that distinction exactly? And aren’t other religions and countries subject to the same selection?
I’m sure you have very well substantiated reasons for calling India a shithole, right? You’ve surely looked in detail at all the crime rates, you’ve visited the country, lived with the people you talk about, right? At least talked to them a few times? You wouldn’t be just talking out of your ass about people you hardly know anything about, right?
Very funny how the crime rates of every other religious group, one way or another, are because of their beliefs but for Hindus they are despite their beliefs.
Of course the "top breeds" statement isn't true - Large number of untouchables (Dalit) moved to the UK because they were treated far better here and had a chance of getting better jobs than in India
The crime rates for all groups is mainly due to a variety of heritable factors, as well as age structure of the population.
Indians are highly genetically diverse with lower castes having lower IQ and bad crime rates and higher castes having lower crime and higher IQ. Most immigration from India to the West comes from higher castes.
India is a disgusting shithole where people worship rats and celebrate shit. The crime rate against those society doesn't care for, like dalits, poors, women is probably well under-reported. you aren't known for sexual harassment and rape for nothing. and the pathetic pining after white women. I get you fancy you're going to be treated as better than muslims or something which is what your silly little comment appears to be geared towards. In no uncertain terms, Hinduism is the most filthy and disgusting religion in the history of all religions and there has never been anything more embarrassing or disgusting than Hinduism. I'd rather have a kenyan in canada than one of you. Has no place in the west imo. Please stay in India and stop trying to ruin the west with your presence thank you. There is a reason you crawl to it, and abandon your own people in droves, we see through it.
btw I've got a wonderful channel for you
https://t.me/indianhate
Well, I must say, this is very helpful. Now I won’t try to pretend there’s some reasonable argument hidden deep behind that naked faced hatred.
My religion worships all nature and reality itself so, truly, well spotted that we do worship rats as well. I can tell that numbers really aren’t your strong suit but please try to keep up a little- by every measurement my people are making the west a better and not a worse place. May I remind you that westerners literally searched the entire world trying to reach my ancestors? They weren’t fleeing bad circumstance, they specifically wanted to reach India so badly that they tried to circumnavigate the world and mistook other peoples as Indians. You can’t possibly know what real ruin is until you study what the west has done to my homeland.
But if you insist on a race to the bottom, by all means, drive all the Hindus out of your country. I am sure they will be better off in the long run. And rest assured, no one is asking you to treat anyone any better. You seem quite incapable of it anyway, and frankly some abominations in this world are better left to the judgement of devas and danavas. I can only wish you luck when it catches up to you.
The west had already reached India long before they landed in America, what they wanted was to find a more efficient route for more profitable spice trade.
Indian immigration is not making the west better. They are not as bad as other immigrant groups, but they still constitute economic competition for natives, vote overwhelmingly left and for their own interests above the native interests, are not culturally compatible. They are just different and generally not wanted.
India was not an impressive civilization compared to the west before colonialization, and Britain did not "ruin" it, quite the opposite. If India was so good before, why was it utterly dominated by comparatively tiny group of British? See the video below for the numbers on this history:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuOCcr9oPN0
Some of the comments here are remarkably crude and only worth ignoring.
But, though it is true that the British had a problematic record in India, the record of the pre-British Empire Indians is probably even worse. The Muslim genocides against Hindus are the most salient episode -- Will Durant thought this constituted the worst mass murder in human history. The inability of non-Muslim Indians to mount a defense against these monsters was a key factor. A government that allows its people to be murdered, en masse, again and again is the worst kind of government there is, short of a government that does the mass murders itself (e.g., the USSR and Germany under the National Socialists).
Without Western technology, India today would be undergoing mass starvation. Like all non-Western countries, it owes most of what it has to the culture of the West.
Nothing to disagree with here, except the last statement. We have had more than a millennium of foreign rule. We fought it off as much as possible but that kind of onslaught does breed a certain amount of dejected complacency in people. You make the best of what you have and you hope to improve what you can. In strictly material terms and due to the technological advantage of the west, yes, India owes most of what it currently has to the west, and the average Indian is grateful to the west for it too. But I shouldn’t forget all the stipulations in making that statement. The wealth that was siphoned out of India has played a significant part in the development of that technological advantage. And on the other hand, India is rapidly moving towards becoming its own independent entity that could boast of its own achievements again. These things cannot be minimized or ignored.
See, Carl, the only acceptable number for non-native Brits, when it comes to crime statistics is zero. Null. N/A. There are already local criminals - no need to add to the weights. The rest of your opus - which sounds like “count your blessings, it could have been worse” - belongs to the garbage bin.
excellent insightful analysis
It would be nice if this is the case. It depresses me that we might be importing large numbers of relatively low IQ criminals into Britain. If only the former is the case, and they make up for it by being more conscientious etc., then it's not so tragic. Reducing our social capital is still a bad idea but at least things might not be quite as bad as I'd thought. Maybe you should have substitled this post as: Things might not be quite as awful as some non-Muslim British people suspect.
"Might be" ? 10% of Albanians in the UK are in prison.
I think it is settled that we are and have been for many years.
It's about 2%. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/04/one-in-50-albanians-uk-in-prison-telegraph-analysis/
This is a genuine surprise but I suspect there is an undercount in south asian Muslim crime and a far greater undercount in black crime. There probably is something of an undercount in white crime as well but perhaps less so. People are afraid to be called racist.
I think there is something really warped in the police/judicial system which is preventing them from nailing enough criminals and also punishing them and incapacitating them like they should be. This is going to be potentially a lot more disastrous for everyone involved and more than Muslims or blacks or racism, I blame the judicial system. Unfortunately it seems british people in general don't want to attend to this issue.
Low iq doesn’t automatically lead to crime. It does so in modern western contexts.
To the extent low iq immigrants assimilate to western culture that can increase crime. Assimilation doesn’t automatically mean assimilation to middle class values, it can easily mean assimilation to underclass values.
To the extent that foreign cultures control underclass behavoir better such assimilation will be a negative.
If the conversions to islam were drastic enough to skew the numbers of Muslim representation in prison, why is the dataset of “no religion” virtually unchanged?
Are Muslim women underrepresented in the crime statistics?
And pigs fly…
The Telegraph ran an article breaking down the crime rate of foreigners in the UK. It breaks it down by nationality.
The Muslim nationalities, so to speak, do seem to be much higher than other immigrant groups, although Vietnamese are an exception.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/04/one-in-50-albanians-uk-in-prison-telegraph-analysis/