Britain + Blacks = The “anti-stab” knife

Paul K. writes:

Whenever I feel that I’m past the point of being astonished by liberal idiocy, something like this comes along: the “anti-stab knife” being introduced in England. The inherent dangers of knives is one of many exciting discoveries made in this Age of Diversity, as we learn that so many of our former assumptions, such as our ability to be trusted with sharp objects, were entirely mistaken. Something must have changed in the British population since 1948 or so, but evidently it’s impossible for anyone outside of the BNP to figure out what it is.

Here is the article Paul sent from the BBC website. The article has an illustration of the “anti-stab knife.”

How do ‘anti-stab’ knives work?

Kitchen knives are the most common weapon used in fatal stabbings, say police. Now a new “anti-stab” knife has been developed, but how does it work?

Knife crime is hardly out of the headlines these days and it makes grim reading.

Stabbing deaths hit a record high of 322 in the UK last year, according to the government. Most knives used in such attacks are from the kitchen, former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair suggested.

The first “anti-stab” knife will soon go on sale in Britain and has been designed to work as normal in the kitchen, but be ineffective as a weapon.

The knife has a unique “combination tip” that reduces the risk of injury. The tip has a rounded edge instead of a point and the blade for cutting is underneath. While it can chop vegetables, the tip makes penetration more difficult. It also snags on clothing and skin, making it very unlikely to inflict a fatal wound.

Doctors have lobbied in the past for kitchen knives to be redesigned. They argue that while a redesign is not a complete solution to the complex problem of knife crime, it could help to save lives.

The New Point knife has been developed by industrial designer John Cornock, who was inspired to create the product after watching a documentary on knife crime. It has taken four years to develop.

‘Intelligent design’

The knife has a blunt “upper protrusion” with a rounded edge which acts as a guard for the sharp point underneath. It has an undercut that snags on clothes, skin or tissue.

A sharp point underneath is used in the usual way as a standard knife point but with limited penetration. An ergonomic handle also reduces the aggressiveness of the product.

“The common kitchen knife has remained unchanged for centuries so now we’re hoping to introduce a safer, more intelligent design for the modern home,” says Mr Cornock.

He says a knife can never be totally safe, but the idea is it can’t inflict a fatal wound. Nobody could just “grab one out of the kitchen drawer and kill someone”.

The knife, which is expected to be launched in late autumn, has been tested with “very favourable” results by the Home Office’s Design and Technology Alliance—set up to research products that can deter crime. It has also been welcomed by those in the medical profession and the police.

Dr Mike Beckett, clinical tutor at West Middlesex Hospital, has previously called for knives to be redesigned. He says all products should combine efficiency in their intended purpose with the greatest possible degree of safety.

“This is especially true of household products which are freely available to the very young and very old, and used by people who may be clumsy, short tempered, drunk or mentally or physically unwell. Most people fit into one or more of these categories at some time in their lives.”

Det Insp Mark Clarkson from the Metropolitan Police’s Anti-Knife Crime Unit says he has tested the new knives and believes the design can reduce both accidental harm within the kitchen and stab-like injuries in general.

Designs for another “safe” kitchen knife were unveiled by Staffordshire County Council’s trading standards officers in April this year. The council is looking to work with manufacturers and retailers to introduce it nationally.

- end of initial entry -

Nicholas T. writes:

The article says:

“Dr Mike Becketat, clinical tutor at West Middlesex Hospital, has previously called for knives to be redesigned. He says all products should combine efficiency in their intended purpose with the greatest possible degree of safety.”

While reading this depressing article, for some reason that phrase jumped out at me as being a kind of modern day liberal mantra.

LA replies:

You’re absolutely right. That phrase truly captures their mindset. The desire for a totally regulated world, with every area of life overseen by the state. Sort of a liberal version of sharia.

But it’s so odd. On one hand, liberals think people are naturally good, and that there is no evil anywhere, and everyone ought to be able to do what he wants. For example, young women ought to be able to go anywhere, at any hour, dressed as they please, in any state of intoxication, and no one should gainsay that. We’re free. On the other hand, liberals regard the world as so unequal, oppressive, hate-filled, and physically dangerous that there must be an all-compassing state to control all the badness. How to explain this contradiction?

The answer is that it’s not a contradiction. It’s completely consistent. The things liberals think are good and to be liberated are sexual desire (especially that of sexual minorities and that which is outside traditional morality generally), self-expression (especially self-expression that undermines traditional society), and nonwhite and non-Western minorities. The things they think are dangerous and to be regulated and suppressed are everything to do with the normal life of Western man. Thus, what is destructive to the normal life of Western man is to be liberated, and what constitutes the normal life of Western man is to be demonized and suppressed.

So there’s no contraction or double standard here, but a single standard: that which tears down the West is good.

In this connection, see my article, “Why is liberalism both liberationist and totalitarian?”

Nicholas T. replies:

“The desire for a totally regulated world, with every area of life overseen by the state.”

It is Sam Francis’ “anarcho-tyranny” in action. Don’t actually do anything about violent criminals, but instead, make ordinary life harder for everyone else, and pretend like the whole charade equals increased safety. If someone really wanted to hurt someone with the anti-stab knife, what’s to prevent them? What’s next, a knife that doesn’t cut anything at all?

There are a few screamers in that article. “An ergonomic handle also reduces the aggressiveness of the product.” What about the aggressiveness of the one holding the product?

LA replies:

Right. It’s a perfect example of anarcho-tyranny. Britain now has almost daily knife murders by blacks. The fact that it is virtually 100 percent blacks who are committing these crimes is almost never mentioned. The problem is “knife-murders,” not “black murders.” If the source of the problem cannot be identified, it can’t be stopped. But something must be done, right? The authorities must demonstrate that they care about this problem and are trying to stop it, right? So knives become the problem. Meaning that all people in Britain are equally likely to use kitchen knives as murder weapons. Redesign all the kitchen knives in Great Britain! Re-invent the knife! Thus savage black predators, who are the actual problem, are allowed to continue running around at liberty, while the normal life of the British people comes under a new, unnatural, intrusive layer of regulation. Moreover, this regulation is deeply totalitarian and demoralizing, because every time a Englishwoman or Englishman slices a potato or cuts a steak, they will be using a knife the very design of which conveys the message that they, the average Englishman and Englishwoman, are likely to use a kitchen knife as a murder weapon, a knife designed and imposed on them by the state for the purpose of avoiding identifying black murderers as black murderers.

Another example, of course, is our airport checks. The outsiders among us who are the real source of the terror threat are assured freedom from any extra surveillance when boarding a plane, while the entire air-traveling U.S. population is subject to demoralizing, humiliating security checks in which we are made to feel that we are the problem. The enemies of the West are liberated from the special scrutiny they ought to face, while the normal life of Western man is regulated and suppressed. And why is it regulated and suppressed? In order to avoid identifying Muslim jihadists as Muslim jihadists.

June 18

Matthew H. writes:

That article on the “Anti-Stab Knife” is astonishing. This sentence caught my eye:

“The common kitchen knife has remained unchanged for centuries so now we’re hoping to introduce a safer, more intelligent design for the modern home,” says Mr Cornock.

Oh yes, this is a long overdue advance in technology. We must bring this clumsy stone-age implement up to modern standards of efficiency. And what long-ignored problem does this new design address? The fact that a certain segment of the population of Britain (not the British people, mind you) are savages.

Of course, the knife, like nearly every other aspect of our contemporary culture, has benefited from continuous advances in technology ever since its invention in pre-history. The use of iron and then steel, with all the innovations necessary to its production, as well as the introduction of stainless steel are all brilliant milestones on the path to this simple yet indispensable tool we all take for granted. Much of this technology was invented in Britain, by Englishmen and Scotsmen.

Now the ignorant “Mr Cornock” and the evil “government” he serves dismiss this gift to humanity as dangerous and stupid because feral humans are using it to slaughter the descendants of its creators.

The “common kitchen knife” has been improving very nicely all this time without any help from the Ministry of Humbug. In fact, it is the minds of certain people currently residing in Britain which have “remained unchanged for centuries.”

The governments of the West, with the UK in the vanguard, have abdicated their legitimacy.

Paul K. writes:

The English friend who sent me the article about the anti-stab knife wrote a polite letter to its inventor, John Cornock, pointing out the futility of legislating against objects. He got the following response (my comments are in brackets):

This project started when my wife read an article written by three doctors at an ER department in London. Everyday they witness first hand the alarming number of serious or lethal injuries inflicted by kitchen knives—not screwdrivers or scissors or any other similar object. Next to guns, knives are the single most effective way of killing and reason? they penetrate and slice through everything in their path causing unstoppable internal bleeding.

Regarding evidence, the vast majority of the teenage deaths we’ve all seen in the media over the past 2 years were caused by people carrying kitchen knives. What would they have used if these potentially lethal weapons could not kill? If one life could have been saved, is that not enough justification for trying to reduce the risk?

[MY COMMENT: “If one life could have been saved, then any repressive legislation we want to pass is justified” mantra is a favorite of the liberals. But think of all the lives that could have been saved if England had not opened its borders to Third World immigrants? Does the equation not hold there? The “anti-stab knife” is unlikely to save a single life, while restricting the entry of crime-prone peoples would save many, many.]

This design is intended to make our homes safer places for everyone. Even if knife crime didn’t exist, the amount of impulse attacks and accidental injuries this product can avoid in years to come is immeasurable. The common kitchen knife hasn’t evolved since it’s medieval beginnings and has no place in the 21st century home.

[Why is that? Why does a tool that has been in common use since its medieval beginnings no longer have a place in the 21st century home? The tool hasn’t changed, but obviously the people have.]

No single idea or product can solve such a complex problem. However all we can hope for is that we can at least try to make a difference.

[Violence is an unpleasant aspect of life, but for most of human history it would not have been described as “complex.” Only liberals, with their refusal to see the world as it is, would describe it that way. First, it is in their nature to downplay man’s capacity for evil, but beyond that, they absolutely cannot acknowledge the fact that certain races are more violence prone than others. “Trying to make a difference” is the pathetic bleat of the liberal as he confronts violence with his “Take Back the Night” marches, Interfaith gatherings between Jews and Muslims, anti-stab knives, and “Gun Free” school zones.]

LA replies:

Astonishing. Yet routine and predictable. This man wants to change all the kitchen knives in Britain (and probably the world), not because he thinks it will “solve” the problem, but because we must “try to make a difference.” That’s a variant on the liberal mantra, “We must do SOMETHING,” i.e., SOMETHING that will demonstrate that we care, that our hearts are in the right place, even if it doesn’t actually help. Demonstrating that we CARE is our purpose, not actually achieving any good. By Cornock’s reasoning, society ought to be reduced to totalitarianism in order to show that we care.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 17, 2009 04:23 PM | Send