Dr. Blynd defines loanshark & LOBSTER as follows;
Loanshark - a parasite whose motto is: "Prey or Pay." 2) Preypal. The difference between loanshark and banker is class. A banker can create "money: out of thin air based on ones signature; a loanshark can only loan what has already been earned.
LOBSTER - Lower Order Behavior Systems Terrorizing Everyone's Rights. 2) Lower Order Bureaucratic Slaves Twisting Everyday Reality. A lobster is a low order behaving MOBSTER, i.e., a territorial gangster with a mindset of eat-or-be-eaten. Even if you put some lobsters on ice - they still come back to life. CRAB is centralized rogue authoritarian behavior. [MORE]
Who are the Real Criminals?
A payday loan is a relatively small, extraordinary high-cost loan, typically due in two weeks and made with a borrower’s post-dated check or access to the borrower’s bank account as collateral. Payday loans are designed to trap borrowers in debt. Due to the short term, most borrowers cannot afford to both repay the loan and pay their other important expenses. If the loan cannot be paid back in full at the end of the term, it has to be renewed, extended, or another loan taken out to cover the first loan. Fees are charged for each transaction. Lenders ask that borrowers agree to pre-authorized electronic withdrawals from a bank account, then make withdrawals that do not cover the full payment or that cover interest while leaving principal untouched.If the lender deposits a repayment check and there are insufficient funds in the borrower’s account, the borrower is hit with even more fees for insufficient funds in their accounts. The bounced amount causes any other automatic debits or payments from the account to also fail and accrue more overdraft fees - wreaking havoc on a person's bank account - thereby leading them to borrow more or disaster.
The annual percentage rates on payday loans are extremely high, typically around 400% to 800%. The loans are available to people unable to obtain credit from traditional lending institutions. They are a last resort taken by persons under extreme financial pressure usually during an emergency of some kind. Sounds like usury right? Not so in a crimeogenic system of white supremacy. Payday loans are the creation of Europeans. So-called white collar crime committed by white folks goes disproportionately unpunished.
Amos Wilson explains the following:
So-called white-collar crime is ordinarily not even counted as crime even though its perpetrators are specifically known to criminal justice officials. Though corporate crime, which robs Americans of billions of dollars endangers the health and destroys the lives of millions of Americans and non-Americans, such activities are not often perceived as crime. While Whites commit the majority of crime in America, crime, particularly "crime in the streets," is seen as an African American monopoly. Ryan very pointedly reports that "out of the total spectrum of crime, very little is committed in the streets." The hue and cry in America for "law and order" is essentially a White American-coded plea for containment of alleged Black criminality — and ultimately a plea for the containment of the African American community.
The trouble with the official crime picture is that it has the effect of grossly distorting the average citizen's image of what crime is all about. It minimizes and deflects attention from one kind of crime (the common kind that one's neighbors commit) and exaggerates and spotlights another, less common, kind (the code name is "crime-in-the-street" which is presumably committed by "criminals").
Why does the American public respond so strongly to the issue of law and order?
There are at least two reasons. One is that the myopic view represented in the conventional wisdom about crime seems to provide at least some vague rationale for the tasks we set for our police; and it is comforting to keep the illusion that police are engaged in law enforcement. Another is that it permits us to keep believing that crime is fertilized by the slums and nurtured by low socio-economic status. We can then go on talking about some mythical separate group of criminals — most of whom, of course, are poor or black or both — dangerous and threatening to the life of the community. We do this through the device of defining as criminal only persons arrested by the police (Emphasis added).
... a set of studies show that there is no substantial relationship between social class and the commission of crimes, but that there is a very marked relationship between class and conviction for crime. . . . (Emphasis added).
The lesson of all this is plain: the fact that half or more of the persons arrested for crimes of personal violence, and that forty to fifty per cent of all prisoners in jails and penitentiaries are black says nothing at all about the criminality of black people. And that an even higher proportion of persons arrested are poor and imprisoned sheds no light whatever on the criminality of the poor. These facts only identify the objects of police and court activity. There are law violators and there are law violators; one kind gets arrested, the other kind is usually left alone.
... that the major determinant of police action is not so much the commission of a crime as the identity of the supposed criminal.
We must judge why we hire the policemen by the evidence. Presumably we hire them to do what they, in fact, do: arrest black people and poor people. In functional terms, it would be hard to evade the conclusion that the major task we give to our police is to control potentially disruptive or troublesome groups in the population.
Ryan further intimates that White America's perception of "crime" as a "Black thing" and that the control or psychopolitical, socioeconomic ostracism of the Black community is based on the belief that crime is far more prevalent in that community than in the White community. This belief is further supported by the oft-projected belief that the criminality of the poor (read: Black) reflects the warping of their character and behavior by the negative social conditions under which they live (i.e., it is not acknowledged that the social conditions under which they live are created and maintained by White America and if the character of a segment of the Black community is criminalized by its living conditions, then White America must ultimately accept its responsibility for creating "Black crime"). Related beliefs include the generally accepted ideas that lower class criminals (read: "Black") form a distinct subculture in the general population and that the overriding purpose of the police is to "quarantine" this subgroup in order to control and suppress its criminal activity.
This set of [beliefs] is an extremely plausible and acceptable version of Blaming the Victim, perhaps the most plausible of all formulations I have discussed. It is also the most outrageous collection of non-facts [unsubstantiated beliefs] imaginable. But the speciousness of the argumentation is not easy to detect. It is difficult, in the first place, to think of the person we call a criminal as a victim at all. In what way is the mugger, the purse-snatcher, the thug who beats up our neighbor in Central Park, a victim? How can the processes of criminal justice, in any sense, be defined as Blaming the Victim?
The real truth is that arrest, trial and punishment of persons accused of breaking the law is very tenuously related to the enforcement of law and the deterrence of crime, and has only a remote relationship with any abstract entity as justice* (*Emphasis added). As J. Edgar Hoover once said in a moment of perhaps unintentional candor, "Justice is incidental to law and order."
Criminality, both alleged and actual, in the African American community indicts White American-dominated society and culture. However, while those who dominate this society and culture are quick to take credit and responsibility for their exaggerated positive characteristics and productivity, they are loathe to take credit and responsibility for one of its outstanding negative characteristics — the oppressive criminalization of the African American community.
Every respectable, half-way competent social scientist who has paid attention at all to the issues of crime and delinquency knows: that crime is endemic in all social classes: that the administration of justice is grossly biased against the Negro and the lower class defendant; that arrest and imprisonment is a process reserved almost exclusively for the black and the poor; and that the major function of the police is the preservation, not only of the public order, but of the social order— that is, of inequality between man and man. To blather on and on about the slum as a "breeding place of crime," about lower class culture as a generating milieu of delinquency" — a presumably liberal explanation of the prevalence of crime among the poor — is to engage (surely, almost consciously) in ideological warfare against the poor in the interest of maintaining the status quo. It is one of the most detestable forms of Blaming the Victim. (Emphasis added)
Parenti corroborates this conclusion in citing the following facts among others:
Leniency is for the affluent, severity for the indigent. Only 18 percent of white-collar embezzlers go to prison for an average of fifteen months and many have their sentences dropped. But 89 percent of working and poor people convicted of larceny spend an average of ten-and-a-half years behind bars. Some examples might serve: a judge imposed a small fine on a stockbroker who had made $20 million through illegal stock manipulation and, on the same day, sentenced an unemployed Black man to one year in jail for stealing a $100 television set from a truck shipment.21
Blacks tend to get substantially longer prison terms than Whites convicted of the same crimes, even when the Black person is a first-time offender and the White person a second- or third-time offender.
To sum up: poor and working-class persons, the uneducated and the racial minorities are more likely to be arrested, less likely to be released on bail, more likely to be induced to plead guilty more likely to go without a pretrial hearing even though entitled to one, less likely to have a jury trial if tried, more likely to be convicted and receive a harsh sentence, and less likely to receive probation or a suspended sentence than are mobsters, business-people, and upper- and middle-class Whites in general.23
Clinton Coxina review of American criminal justice practices noted:
. . . Blacks serve more time in jail than whites for the same offenses: murder, 91.7 months for Blacks versus 79.8 months for whites; rape, 55 months for Blacks versus 43.9 for whites; kidnapping, 41 months for Blacks to 37 for whites; and robbery 37.4 for Blacks to 33.3 for whites.24
Thus, arrest records, prison statistics and the like, are more a reflection of the social status of the alleged criminal than of the nature of criminality across all class lines. The war against crime may be more accurately depicted as a war of the privileged against the underprivileged, of the advantaged against the disadvantaged. Arrest records and related statistics poignantly point out the class bias of the American criminal justice practices. The foregoing discussion was not designed to deny the reality and scale of crime in the African American community. Crime and criminality there are very real and much too prevalent. The discussion was designed to emphasize the fact that crime is not exclusively endemic to the Black community and to point out the way in which criminal justice practices and crime statistics are used to create the false and scandalous impression that African Americans have some sort of monopoly on crime and are "inherently" more criminal than are White Americans. The intriguing issue raised by the discussion just presented is: What purposes do the racist police and criminal justice practices, as well as the biased presentation of crime statistics, serve within the context of White-dominated American society? [MORE]