Racial Violence in America

A National Vanguard White Paper
by Jerry Abbott and National Vanguard staff

Part 1

Introduction

THIS REPORT might be construed as unfair toward those Blacks and Mestizos who have kept themselves to good conduct. It should not be. This page is about statistics, not about individuals, and no one should represent to the contrary. Those whose sensibilities are offended by the truth about racial differences are advised to point their browsers elsewhere.

It’s considered common knowledge that Blacks and Mestizos are more violent than Whites. Your own experience tells you that that’s the way things are. Even Black spokesmen like Bill Cosby and Jesse Jackson have said so. But did you know that the US government keeps statistics that confirm our informally acquired impressions about race and crime?

According to data kept by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Blacks are outperforming Whites in every major violent crime category.

* See The Unspoken Truth by Frank Borzellieri, NEW CENTURY BOOKS, p. 124.

Equalitarians will attempt to explain the excessively high rate of Black violence with references to poverty and to “the degree of urbanization.” As we shall see, however, neither of those explanations is correct. Furthermore, the elevated rate of Black violence is nearly independent of the perpetrator’s age, since Blacks of every age group are more violent than Whites in the same group.

Part 2

US Murders (1995-2003) by Race and Age, with additional details

Note: Three additional murders in 2000 were committed by Blacks under the age of nine.

Note: Two additional murders in 2002 were committed by Blacks under the age of nine.

Note: One additional murder in 2003 was committed by Whites under the age of nine.

If the races were “equal,” the numbers in the right-most column of each of the above tables would be within a few percent of 1.0.

The totals for murders committed by “Whites” were not corrected for the Justice Department’s fraudulent inclusion of Mestizos, Arabs and certain other non-White offenders.

The short horizontal lines on the right side of the graph are the averages, weighted by the number of murder perpetrators per age, for the curve of the same color.

To follow are the average (for the years 1995-2003) per capita rate ratios (Black to White) for murder perpetration, listed by the average age of each of the age groups considered in the tables above, except the first (9-12). For this table, Hispanics were NOT separated from the “White” offender totals. The standard deviations are also shown.

Part 3

Murder Victim – Offender Relationship by Race (1995-2003)

Interracial murder ratios should be understood to be ratios of known interracial murders. No interracial murders were assumed to have happened when the race of either victim or murderer is unknown.

Hispanics were NOT removed from the “Whites” in these tables. Somewhere between 18% and 38% of the violent crimes that the Justice Department attributes to “Whites” were committed by Latinos, Arabs, Jews or by a member of some other non-White ethnic group.

The Justice Department uses its “White” category as a racial miscellaneous bin. When I correct for the government’s thus loading the White offender totals, I usually assume that one-quarter of the crimes alleged to have “White” perpetrators were committed by such miscategorized non-Whites.

The government can’t make Whites out of non-Whites by passing laws or making policies, any more than it can change the value of pi to 3.0000 for the convenience of engineers and architects. But they certainly have managed to impart confusion in the interpretation of their crime statistics—probably intentionally, don’t you think?

When you remove the non-Whites from the “White” offender totals, the per capita rate ratio of Black-on-White murders to White-on-Black murders becomes (typically) about 23. This ratio is a measure of the relative higher capacity of Blacks for racial hatred and of the relatively higher propensity of Blacks toward violence, as compared with Whites.

Similarly, the per capita rate ratio of White-perpetrator murders to Black-perpetrator murders becomes (typically) about 9.5. This ratio is a measure of the relatively higher propensity of Blacks toward violence, as compared with Whites.

We divide the ratios to determine, as a plausible guess at least, that Blacks have about 23/9.5 = 2.4 times the capacity for hatred that Whites do.

Further, these data include only murders having a single perpetrator and a single victim. Most White killers are lone operators, whereas many Blacks kill in packs or gangs as a cooperative activity. If all murders were included, the proportion of Blacks among the perpetrators would be even higher than indicated above.

Part 4

Discussion of Tables in Parts 2 and 3

The tables in Part 2 show that Blacks at all ages exhibit much higher per-capita rates for murder perpetration than Whites (at the same age) do. The racial behavioral difference is higher for younger Blacks than it is for older ones, with the very largest deviation at about age 21 or 22.

However, at no age do Blacks have a per-capita murder perpetration rate that is low enough to be “merely” twice that of the White rate.

Further, only in the 55-64 age group do Blacks in some years have a per capita murder perpetration rate slightly less than triple the White rate for that same age group.

(If the crimes of Hispanics were removed from the tally of “White” crimes, the exception just mentioned would not occur, and there would be no age group for which the Black per capita murder perpetration rate was low enough to be “merely” triple the White rate. The tables in the previous two parts were not corrected for the Justice Department’s erroneous inclusion of non-White Hispanics in its list of allegedly “White” offenders.)

As a rule of thumb, White people over the age of 20 have about the same per capita murder perpetration rate as Blacks who are 2.0 to 2.5 times their age.

It is important to remember that the racial classification policy of the Justice Department, including the FBI, erroneously designates Latino Hispanics, Arabs, Jews, various mixed breeds, and etcetera as “Whites” when they are crime perpetrators. (It makes no such error when these other racial groups and mongrelizations are crime victims.) It is possible to estimate that real Whites probably committed about 75% of the crimes attributed to “White” offenders in Justice Department statistics, but that estimate was not undertaken in the tables in Part 2 and Part 3.

The tables in Part 3 show that the Black-to-White per capita murder perpetration rate ratios remain essentially consistent from year to year. In each year, the average Black commits murder about seven times more often than the average White does. Furthermore, the average Black commits interracial murder about twelve times more often than the average White does. Beyond that, the average Black kills Whites about fifteen times as often as the average White kills Blacks.

Although most murders involve killers and victims of the same race, the interracial murders that do occur are heavily weighted toward Black perpetrators and White victims. Furthermore, for violent crimes other than murder, the “mostly same race” phenomenon does not hold. For rape, assault and armed robbery, there is more Black-on-White crime than Black-on-Black crime, according to Frank Borzellieri in The Unspoken Truth (page 125). He says,

Black-on-White murder is 17 times more likely than White-on-Black murder; Black-on-White robbery and rape are both 70 times more likely than the reverse; and Black-on-White gang violence is 83 times more likely. (These numbers are actually worse than they appear because Hispanics are included in the “White” perpetrator totals, thereby exaggerating the White crime rates.)

Related information can be found on these pages:
Race and Crime: An International Dilemma
by J. Philippe Rushton

Brain Size Matters: A Reply to Peters
by J. Philippe Rushton

The Color of Crime
New Century Foundation

The Race War of Black against White
by Paul Sheenan

Ideology and Censorship in Behavior Genetics
by Glayde Whitney

Two Nations, Not One
by Kevin Alfred Strom

Untold Story
by Joseph Sobran

Black and Mestizo gangs commit more murders in a single week, on the average, than all the organized White “racist” groups have even been accused of for the past 50 years. The government’s emphasis on so-called “hate crimes” (with a notable bias toward finding White people guilty of committing them) is the result of political pressure brought to bear on government agencies by the Jewish controlled media and by Jewish pressure groups, including the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai Brith. There is no genuine criminal justice need for the special category of hate crime; however, even if there were, the categorization is presently being abused with an anti-White bias.

“Hate crime,” in other words, is less of a law-enforcement concept than a political one. It is used to assist in maintaining the “politically correct” illusion — an illusion exactly opposite to the reality — that Whites are less lawful and more violent than non-Whites. As we shall see from official government sources of crime data, the truth is that Whites are more lawful and less violent than Blacks or Mestizos, the two non-White groups having the most substantial minority presence within the United States. I’ll have more to say about “hate crimes” in Part 8.

Black Racial Hatred as a Factor

In the United States at present, interracial murders are about 11.9% of all murders. About 9.3% of all murders (78% of interracial murders) are Black-on-White. About 2.6% of all murders (22% of interracial murders) are White-on-Black. A country of 99.9% White residents and just enough Blacks not to run out of them before the year was over would only have 6.53% of murders interracial. By contrast, a country of 99.9% Black residents and just enough Whites not to run out before the year was over would have more than 15% of murders interracial. (Maybe a lot more! I’m assuming that the Blacks don’t organize to exterminate the Whites, as they did in San Domingo, Belgian Congo, and now in Zimbabwe.)

Curious, is it not, that the interracial percentage of murders rises with the percentage of Blacks?

Moreover, the fastest part of the increase comes early. When the population is 10% Black, the interracial percentage is already 11% of all murders. When the population is half-and-half, the interracial percentage reaches 14.5%.

Whites outnumber Blacks in the United States by a ratio of 6.125. Those figures permit us to calculate that the average Black is 6.125 (78/22) = 21.7 times more likely to murder a White than the reverse.

The per capita murder rate is a function of both racial percentages and degree of urbanization, as we saw in the section just above this one. But in the absence of Black militarization, the per capita rate ratio of Black-on-White murders to White-on-Black murders does not depend on racial percentages; it stays at 21.7. (If the Blacks militarize against the Whites, that ratio would go way up. It’s fortunate that in the United States the Blacks are still a minority.) That ratio specifies a fundamental difference between Whites and Blacks, regarding the propensity for violence and the capacity for racial hatred.

When the race of the victim is not considered, the average Black is 9.5 times more likely to commit murder than is the average White. That, too, specifies a fundamental difference between Whites and Blacks, but this time regarding the propensity for violence alone.

Since 21.7 / 9.5 equals about 2.3, we can estimate that Blacks have about 2.3 times the capacity for extreme racial hatred as Whites do.

Part 5

The Problem with the FBI’s Racial Categories

While the Census Bureau often categorizes real Whites separately from Mestizos, the FBI and the Justice Department usually do not. The law-enforcement agencies of the federal government lump together crimes committed by Whites, Mestizos, Arabs, Jews, various North Africans and Middle Easterners, and certain Filipinos (and God-only-knows what else) into the same category, deceptively labeled “Whites,” skewing the apparent White crime total upwards. When the FBI reports a percentage of crimes as having “White” perpetrators, we must keep in mind that the report refers to the combination of Whites and these others, who together formed about 84% of the US population in 1995. Real Whites, alone, comprised 73% of the US population in 1995. To prevent confusion between real Whites and all those whom the FBI calls “Whites,” we will put the category of FBI “Whites” in quotation marks.

Among the notables whom the FBI was deceptively calling “White” were: Lamen Khalifa Fhimah (an Arab), Victor Manuel Gerena (a Hispanic), Agustin Vasquez-Mendoza (a Hispanic), and Abdel Basset Ali Al-Megrahi (an Arab).

The FBI Uniform Crime Reports are available on the Internet at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm.

It would seem as though the FBI is trying hard to make Whites (real ones) look bad. Go to the FBI Most Wanted pages, including the archives for previous months, and you’ll see many photos of Mestizo fugitives being called “White.” When Hispanics, most of whom are Mestizos, are the victims of violent crimes, they are recorded as non-Whites and the crime is often called a “hate crime.” But when Hispanics commit violent crimes, they are routinely designated “White” for the purpose of keeping score at the Justice Department. What does that tell you about the Justice Department?

But despite this anti-White statistical fudging, the FBI Uniform Crime Reports nonetheless reveals an amazingly disproportionate rate for violent crimes committed by non-Whites, especially by Blacks. In one of these reports, titled Crime in the United States, we determine from Table 2.8 that, in 1995, the average Black was 16.4 times more likely to kill a “White” than the reverse. How does that square with what you heard in television news reports during the same period? And what does that tell you about the media? We’ll discuss the media’s role in race-related crime information in Part 15.

Apparently the Justice Department is trying to fool everyone into thinking that Whites commit more crimes than they do by grouping them together with non-Whites (such as Mestizos) within a category that is deceptively labeled “Whites.” You know what they say about truth in war — it’s the first casualty. But at the time of this writing it was still possible to reconstruct the actual relationship between race and crime by taking only the FBI totals for violent crime in each state and correlating them with racial population estimates for the states from the U.S. Census Bureau. Graphs showing that correlation appear in Part 9 and Part 10.

In the future, however, this sort of analysis might become impossible. Someday, maybe, statistical data revealing the facts of racial differences may be regarded as classified information and treated in the same manner as military and police intelligence currently is: against the law for any “uncleared” American citizen to possess, unless that citizen happens to be a Jew working for the ADL. Don’t laugh! There’s evidence that the whole system of classifying information, ostensibly pursuant to the US national security, is in fact a scheme designed to give Israel a monopoly on trading US military secrets to America’s potential enemies. The only people actually denied this information is you, the US citizen. The Jews won’t have you betraying your country before they have had first crack at it!

Part 6

Is the Justice Department Cleaning Up Its Act?

Between 19 April 1999 and 20 August 1999, I was unable to access the statistical information on the federal government’s website that I used as part of the presentation on this web page. Apparently, the FBI changed their website, moving pages from one URL to another, and for one reason or another my browser was unable to make the new links work. For several months, I thought that the Justice Department had decided to discontinue public access to crime information documents such as Crime in the United States and the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports. Partly, I thought so because a equalitarian debate opponent of mine predicted that the FBI would take those documents offline because “racists” (like me) were “abusing” the information (with pages like this one). It was a prediction that seemed to come true. I suspected that the government had begun concealing crime information for political reasons, which would have been consistent with incidents in which law enforcement officers have been required to apologize or who have lost their jobs as the result of displaying excessive honesty in public on what the racial situation is with respect to crime in their jurisdictions.

But perhaps not. On 20 August 1999, I noticed that some of the race-related crime statistics had reappeared on the Bureau of Justice Statistics website at
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm.
(IMPORTANT NOTE: The “White” crime offenses cited on that page include offenses committed by Mestizo Hispanics, a group of non-Whites with a large presence in the United States. The actual difference between White and Black murder rates is greater than that page indicates.)

I wrote the BJS to commend them on publishing this information, such as it was, and I mentioned that it would be a good thing if they would provide even more detailed race-related crime information in an updated version of that page or on a separate page. I also told them that I had been unable to make the links to FBI crime statistical documents work. I received two replies in connection with the links that had not worked for me. First, someone at the BJS thanked me for pointing out the problem and that the links would be fixed soon. She also gave me a new URL for the page indexing the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports in Adobe Acrobat format. Secondly, I got another reply from the FBI from someone who told me that the links that had not worked for me did work for other people who tried them, suggesting that the problem was with my browser or with the version of Adobe Acrobat that I was using. (It must have been the browser because I’d have tried saving the files to disk for moving to another computer where I have Adobe Acrobat installed.)

Although it is good that the Bureau of Justice Statistics examines crime without a total aversion of racial factors, the BJS appears to be politically cautious about which facts are highlighted in its presentations. For example, this BJS page puts emphasis on the fact that most murders are intraracial (within the same race), and it avoids important facts concerning interracial murders. It is certainly worthwhile to observe that the average Black poses a far higher murder risk (about 16 times higher, in fact) to the average White than the reverse.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics has updated this page and prominently displays the words:

Racial differences exist, with blacks disproportionately represented among homicide victims and offenders. Blacks were 6 times more likely to be murdered than whites in 1998. Blacks were 7 times more likely than whites to commit homicide in 1998.”

There is a bit of language bias in that summary: Blacks “are murdered” but they “commit homicide.” Not every homicide is a murder, and yet this page is devoted to crime statistics, which means it should treat murders, not justifiable or accidental homicides. In fact, to be closer to reality, the BJS should have summarized what anybody can determine from Table 2.8 in Crime in the United States, 1998 — something like:

Blacks were 6 times more likely to be murdered than Whites in 1998, and 93% of the time the murderer of a Black was another Black.

This would reduce the chance that someone, intentionally or not, and despite the bold admission “Racial differences exist,” would use the BJS page as a source of support for an erroneous demonstration that Blacks and Whites were at some sort of parity in the interracial violence department. The BJS could also improve the second half of its summary by saying

Blacks were 7 times more likely than Whites to commit murder in 1998. Blacks were 14 times more likely to murder Whites than the reverse, in 1998.

Saying it that way (i.e., with more completeness) avoids the chance that somebody will read casually and come away with the erroneous impression that Whites and Blacks were equally vicious toward each other. They’re not. The average Black poses a far greater risk to the average White than the other way around. And the BJS should say so. Blacks tend to kill a lot, and when Whites live among Blacks, some of this Black murdering spills over to them. Ergo, Whites should not live among Blacks. Therefore, smart Whites don’t live among Blacks. Hence, smart equalitarian Whites are hypocrites.

The graph near the middle of the page, captioned “Homicides by race of offender and victim, 1976-98,” contains a history of murder percentages, resolved by race, but not adjusted for the size of the population of the perpetrator’s race. It should be. Criminologists trying to find significance in crime rate trends within various geographic regions know better than to leave the crime totals unadjusted for the size of the regions’ populations. California has more residents than Idaho does, and it would be natural for California to have the greater number of crimes. But when the number of crimes is divided by the number of people eligible to be committing them, and when there remains a significant difference in the per capita crime rates, then perhaps some important reason exists to explain it. For the same reason, the lines on that graph should each be divided by the size of the (US) population of the perpetrator’s race. Presenting the murder history graph this way would give US citizens a better feel for the threat that a typical member of each race poses to themselves.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics appears to have someone working for it who is struggling to present at least part of the racial facts despite political pressure to keep the lid on it. Maybe the government still has a few honest, courageous statisticians. Or maybe they just don’t like getting upstaged because I post more race-related crime information than they do. They can have the spotlight back whenever they want — just post more BJS data in a way that will be optimally helpful and relevant to the majority of Americans, without hedging on the racial issues for political reasons.

While corresponding with Justice Department employees David Levin and Marianne Zawitz, I learned that

Federal statistical standards classify races as American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and White. White is defined as a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. Ethnicity is defined separately. These standards are used by all Federal statistical data collections.

Well, actually, the Census Bureau keeps a record of how many of their “Whites” are also Hispanics. (However, even the Census Bureau will tell you that Hispanics may be of any race. The word “may” is key. The fact is that the large majority of Hispanics in the United States are Mestizos. They do not belong to the same race as the White people who descend from the native peoples of Europe.) But the Justice Department doesn’t keep a record of which or how many of the “White” crime offenders are really White, how many are Mestizos, how many are Arabs, how many are Turks, and how many are Jews. They’re all lumped together.

Interestingly, though, the government does set aside a special racial category for Alaska Natives. The name is awkward. The brother of an Alaska Native, living in Canada, doesn’t acquire a different race simply because of where he lives. If “Alaska Native” designates a race, then there may exist Alaska Natives who are not native to Alaska. It’s best to avoid that kind of semantic oddity. The government should use a term that references biology, rather than geography.

Although the choice of terms could be better, giving Alaska Natives their own racial category was a good idea. You have to wonder why it was not done with “Whites.” The good reasons that prompted the segregation of the case of Alaska Natives weren’t thought of, or more likely weren’t applied, in the case of “Whites.” Why not? It makes no more sense to lump Europeans, Semites, Turks, and Mestizos together as it would to lump Eskimos with Asians. But whereas the DoJ didn’t make the latter classification error, it routinely makes the former one. When you complain about it to Justice Department officials, you get replies that say, more or less, “Well that’s just how things are.”

It’s “just how things are” that the Justice Department uses the “White” racial classification as its miscellaneous bin. And the frequent absence of any warning sign advising users of government crime statistics that this racial-lumping has been done is bound to mislead at least a few of the more naive researchers and provide grist for the mills of those who practice deliberate racial deceptions. Besides that, doesn’t it sound suggestive of what White nationalists have been warning about: that the government, controlled by Jews, has a policy of miscegenating the White race out of existence, just as it has already deprived the White race of separate representation in its statistical methods.

Part 7

More Problematic FBI Procedure: Flawed Crime Imputation

A region’s racial composition is THE most reliable predictor of its rate of violent crimes. And yet, apparently, the FBI does not adjust for racial factors when it seeks to impute its guesswork about crime rates, in an attempt to compensate for partial or inefficient crime reporting by local jurisdictions. The FBI’s “imputation algorithm” makes allowances for comparatively trifling factors, but (from what I’ve been able to gather from the web) not for race.

In 1994, the FBI changed the way it copes with the fact that some police jurisdictions are more efficient than others at reporting arrests for violent crime activity to the federal agency. Earlier, the FBI merely reported known arrests and labeled the gaps as such. But since 1994, they have begun “guessing” about the data that “should” have been reported, if the less-efficient jurisdictions had performed more efficiently. You readers who have had a science course or two know the invalidity of substituting guesswork for experimental data, and those of you who understand basic numerical analysis understand the risks of error in extrapolation.

Nonetheless,

What would you care to bet that the ADL wasn’t foremost in those “discussions by UCR file users”, or that the ADL isn’t influential with the “Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research,” or that the “Imputation Algorithm” and the “Coverage Indicator” are really devices to ensure greater accuracy in the crime-related information presented by the Uniform Crime Reports? I wouldn’t wager a nickle on any of those things.

Notice that the racial composition of a jurisdiction isn’t among the factors that the FBI will consider when making its “guestimates” about how to fill in the gaps in the data reported by local police and county sheriff’s departments. Let’s consider two counties in about the same area: Fulton County (pop. 650,000) and Gwinnett County (pop. 353,000), both near Atlanta, Georgia. The two populations have large differences in racial composition, with Fulton County being mostly Black and Gwinnett County being mostly White. Predictably, they also have large differences in violent crime.

The reader is invited to compare the italicized numbers in the last row with: 7.9, 4.4, 9.6, 3.9 (respectively); those are the ratios of Black-to-White per capita rates in those same crime categories for the entire U.S., averaging data from 1993 and 1995. The urbanization of both counties may be affecting the ratios slightly, especially for assault, but otherwise the match is a good one and demonstrates the fact that many behavioral tendencies are racial and hereditary.

In 1990, Gwinnett County had a total population of 352,910 — of which 89.4% were Whites (real ones) and 5.2% were Blacks. Gwinnett County had 13 murders, 94 rapes, 372 robberies, and 637 aggravated assaults reported to the police during 1990.

In 1990, Fulton County had a total population of 648,779 — of which 46.8% were Whites (real ones) and 50.1% were Blacks. Fulton County had 227 murders, 794 rapes, 6542 robberies, and 9178 aggravated assaults reported to the police during 1990.

There you have it: two counties in the same state, side-by-side, sharing portions of the same major American city, having much history and commerce in common. The biggest difference between them is racial demographics. The mostly Black county has much more crime than the mostly White county does.

The numbers suggest, furthermore, that many of the violent crimes in mostly White Gwinnett County are being perpetrated by the Blacks who do live there. Consider: Fulton County had 17.7 times as many Blacks as Gwinnett County did. Multiplying the crime totals for Gwinnett County by 17.7, we get these predictions for Fulton County’s crime totals: 230 murders (the actual number was 227), 1664 rapes (the actual number was 794), 6584 robberies (the actual number was 6542), and 11275 aggravated assaults (the actual number was 9178). The relative errors for these predictions are: 1.3 percent for murder, 109.6 percent for rape, 0.6 percent for robbery, and 22.8 percent for aggravated assault. So the guess that Blacks are responsible for most of the crimes that do occur in Gwinnett County is a lousy guess for rape, but it is a pretty good guess for aggravated assault, and it is an excellent guess for murder and robbery. (It should be remembered, however, that rape is an underreported crime and possibly a fair number of Black female rape victims are keeping quiet about their abuse.)

But suppose that the FBI, prodded perhaps by the ADL, chose to believe that the wide variation in the per capita rates of violence in Fulton and Gwinnett Counties were due to an incomplete reporting of violent crime in the mostly White Gwinnett County because of a lack of efficiency of the police there, instead of putting the blame on race, where it really belongs. To reduce the “imbalance” in the crime rates, the FBI might “adjust” Gwinnett County’s total number of violent crimes upwards and present their additions to us as factual data. We would have no way of knowing the truth without actually going to Gwinnett County and doing a lot of on-the-spot investigation ourselves! And which of us has enough money to keep doing that all around the country?

Part 8

Hate Crimes: A Smoke and Mirrors Trick

There is another game that the Justice Department and the FBI like to play, possibly in collusion with Jewish organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith. That game involves a class of crimes called “hate crimes.” What is a “hate crime”? It is a judgment call by a police officer or other government agent about what a crime suspect might have been thinking when he broke the law. It is not an “interracial crime.” A crime may be both a hate crime and an interracial crime, but it may also be neither, or either but not the other.

Interracial crimes are obviously what they are, objectively and unequivocally. But by defining a new category (or anyway a “modified” category) of crimes, namely “hate crimes,” and leaving it up to the opinion of government authorities to say what belongs in that category and what doesn’t, means that law enforcement has acquired a judicial capacity — the capacity of imposing extra punishment on you, if convicted, because of their opinion about your thoughts. If, for example, you can get a longer prison sentence if your conviction is aggravated by “hate crime” circumstances, then what brought you the extra punishment is not what you did, but what the police believed you were thinking when you did it. In better times, a constitutional principle known as the “separation of powers” would have prevented this kind of thing from happening. But the Constitution does not appear to be the supreme law of the land anymore. We’re sorry, Mr. Franklin, that we couldn’t keep the republic.

Furthermore, the new “hate crimes” category allows the government’s statistics-keepers to confuse us by publishing breakdowns by race of the per capita rates for “hate crimes” (which are subjective, remember) as though they were the same thing as breakdowns by race of the per capita rates for interracial crimes. I believe that you can count on the Jewish-controlled media not to remind us of the difference between hate crimes and interracial crimes whenever a TV news anchorman drones on about violent crime in the United States.

Indeed, when you look in the FBI’s own publications, one of the things that strikes you is the fact that the Black-to-White ratio in the per capita rate of “hate crimes” is astonishingly lower than the Black-to-White ratio in the per capita rate of interracial crimes. To get an idea of the difference that official opinion can make in the publication of crime statistics, let’s consider the FBI data.

Now let’s look closer. The FBI routinely classifies Hispanic Mestizos (a group of non-Whites) as Whites when they are the perpetrators of crimes, and this is almost certainly true of the above table. Hispanics commit violent crimes at a higher per capita rate than real Whites do, but let’s assume, for simplicity, that Hispanics commit merely a proportionate share of violent crimes. Of the 4991 “White” offenders listed in the above table, no more than 4286 were real Whites, since about 705 of them were Hispanics. I said, “no more than” because the FBI likes to classify Arabs and Jews, and sometimes Filipinos, as Whites also, meaning that 4286 is likely an upper limit for the actual number of White “hate criminals.”

Notice one other thing, as well, before I get into comparing the per capita perpetration rate ratios. The FBI presents the percentage of all hate crimes committed by each race (never mind the Mestizo-packing in their White offender list for now), without reminding you that Whites greatly outnumber Blacks in the United States, at least for the time being. The naive impression that a lazy or uninformed reader might get is that Whites are, by and large, more dangerous than Blacks. It is only when you include the relative sizes of the racial groups in your thinking that you can see that the opposite is really the truth and, from there, estimate what kind of crime situation the country is moving toward as the number of non-Whites grows in proportion to the number of Whites.

It’s a shame when you have to correct FBI methods for racial cheating and for deception by omission, but there you have it. The entire catagory of “hate crime” was politically inspired and is not needed as a law-enforcement tool. But if they must have this category, then they at least should keep score fairly, which they are not doing as long as they keep stuffing relatively violent non-Whites into the White “hate criminal” category.

The table gives the figures for 1995. That year, according to the Census Bureau, White US Citizens outnumbered Black US residents by a ratio of 6.59 to one. The ratio of White “hate crime” offenders (revised to remove the Mestizos from the tally) to Black “hate crime” offenders was 1.90 to one. Dividing 6.59 by 1.90 gives us the per capita perpetration rate ratio, Black to White, for hate crimes, namely 3.47. The average Black commits a hate crime about three-and-a-half times as often as the average White does.

(In an earlier study, I found that Blacks were about four times more likely to commit “hate murders” than Whites were. This more general estimate supports my earlier conclusion.)

Now before any of my fellow White racists gets smug about the FBI’s confirmation that Blacks commit the so-called “hate crimes” at a higher rate than Whites do, kindly notice that the ratio is lower (Black/White) for the perpetration of violent “hate crimes” than it is for violent interracial crimes. For example, Blacks committed interracial murder at 14 times the rate that Whites did, in 1995, and fourteen is a lot larger than three-and-a-half or four. That’s a very significant difference. A Black who assaults a White has only 25% as much risk of being considered a “hate criminal” that a White would have for assaulting a Black. In other words, most Blacks who murder, or rape, or assault, or rob Whites feel absolutely no hate while doing so, in the opinion of the average police officer!

It is much easier for a White to fall into the “hate crimes” category if he attacks Blacks than it is for a Black to fall into that category if he attacks Whites, even if the crimes are otherwise identical. For example, in April 2000, about 200 Blacks rioted in Cincinnati, committing dozens of acts of assault, arson and vandalism. They destroyed millions of dollars’ worth of property and injured many White people in their rampage of racially motivated violence. (What set off the riot was a White cop shooting a Black criminal who had been trying to run away from arresting officers.) But who was the first person charged with a “hate crime”? It was a White man who, after swearing at a Black, threw a brick through a car window, causing about $50 worth of damage and harming nobody. In this city, on this day, Black violent deeds outnumbered White violent deeds by, perhaps, a thousand to one. But it was the White offender who was first charged. Sounds political, doesn’t it?

Thus, the political function of the “hate crime” category becomes evident — hate crime is an ill-defined category mainly used to trap Whites — which points toward the motive for creating that category of crimes. I have a strong suspicion that the subtle sneakiness of these criminal justice statistical methods are coordinated with the media’s habitual duplicity in regard to the frequency of violent Black-on-White crimes, compared with the relatively rare occurance of violent White-on-Black crimes.

As mentioned earlier, the FBI and DoJ usually lump Hispanics — most of whom are Mestizos — into their “White” racial category for the purpose of recording the race of crime perpetrators. However, on the relatively rare occasion when a violent White perpetrator chooses a victim whom he believes to be a Hispanic (and usually the belief will be correct), the FBI / DoJ pull out their “hate crime” score sheets and chalk up another non-White victim of a White “hate criminal.”

Let’s go over that again.

With Whites and Blacks, the law-enforcement policy regarding “hate crimes” seems to be one of “selective noticing.” As a rule (with exceptions) a “hate crime” is NOTICED when the perpetrator is White and the victim is Black. When the perpetrator is Black and the victim is White, no “hate crime” is noticed .

With Whites and Hispanics, the law-enforcement policy regarding “hate crimes” seems to involve a selective imputation of Mestizo chameleony. When the Mestizo is the perpetrator and the White is the victim, the FBI usually adopts the position that the Mestizo was White, too, so therefore the crime had no racial bias. But when the perpetrator is White and the victim is a Mestizo, the FBI does not perform its racial switcheroo on the Mestizo, and thus another “hate crime” by a “White racist” is recorded.

Legal subjectivity is a useful thing, to a tyrant. In a 17 June 2001 Reuters news article by Nancy Mayfield, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft reportedly said that his predecessor in office, Janet Reno, had death penalty quotas in which the federal government would seek capital punishment in…

38 percent of cases involving White defendants
25 percent of cases involving Black defendants
20 percent of cases involving Hispanic defendants

Notice that the Justice Department does distinguish between Whites and Hispanics (i.e., Mestizos), but only so that it can inflict an injustice on Whites.

Whites comprise 59% of death-row inmates, while Blacks comprise only 39%. Dishonest equalitarians like to portray those numbers as showing bias against Blacks because the percentage of Blacks on death row is higher than the percentage of Blacks in the general population (about 14% in 2000). The implicit assumption that the equalitarians are making is, as you might expect, that Whites and Blacks are equals in terms of the per capita murder perpetration rate. That assumption is false, and it is a false assumption that equalitarians make with mendacious consistency. The per capita murder perpetration rate for Blacks is about eight times higher than that for Whites, so that although Whites outnumber Blacks in the United States by almost six-to-one, Blacks often commit more murders per year than Whites do. If the death penalty were applied without bias, then at least half of the death-row prison population would be Black. Any Black death-row percentage less than 50% indicates an anti-White bias with the death penalty, not an anti-Black bias.

The anti-White bias of the federal government, and in particular of the Justice Department, couldn’t be made more clear. It is likewise no innocent mistake that the government has a similar bias when it comes to deciding which interracial crimes are “hate crimes,” and which are not.

Part 9

Correlation between Race and Crime Rate (US States)
Blacks and Mestizos Taken Together

The data to form this graph was taken from Tables #310, #37, #38 and #36 in The American Almanac 1995-1996. Blacks and Hispanics (who are mostly Mestizos) were taken together as one group to form that graph. The correlation coefficient for the data graphed there (representing the 50 states plus the District of Columbia) is 0.85. A least-squares linear fit to the data results in the equation

Y = 147.1920 + 27.2392 Xwhere X is the percentage of the population that is either Black or Hispanic and Y is the rate of violent crimes (per 100,000 population per year).

Graph information source: Check my work.

Part 10

Correlation between Race and Violent Crime Rate (US States)
Blacks and Mestizos Taken Separately

Two people who sent me email in response to my first graph objected to my lumping Blacks and Hispanics together as one variable, as I did in the graph in Part 9, and they had a good point. There may be racial differences between Blacks and the Mestizos that we usually consider “Hispanics.” So I graphed the data again, this time using the X axis to measure the percent of the population that is Black, the Y axis to measure the percent of the population that is Hispanic, and to indicate the violent crime rate I color-coded the data points (as well as enlarged them in especially heavy crime areas). The data indicate that, with some exceptions that differences in local laws might account for, both Blacks and Hispanics exhibit disproportionately high tendencies to commit violent crimes, with Blacks being somewhat the more vicious of the two. The conclusion is clear: The whiter the demographics in the area where you live, the safer you probably are. The exceptions are interesting, however.

Mississippi, a state with a 35% Black population, somehow manages to keep its annual rate of violent crimes under 600 crimes per 100,000 persons per year. That’s an astonishingly low rate of violence for a state with so many Blacks. Mississippi’s rate is commensurate with those of Pennsylvania and Connecticut, which states are only nine percent Black. To put it another way, Mississippi is a state where over one-third of the population is Negro, but it keeps the violent crime rate down at a level you’d expect of a state having no more than one-tenth of its population Black.

Something similar is going on with Virginia, where about one-fifth of the population is Black. But Virginia maintains the same relatively low rate of violent crime that you’d expect of a state where no more than five percent (1/20^th) of the population were Black.

Whatever the governments of Virginia and Mississippi are doing, they should keep on doing it. It is hard to believe that the Blacks in those states just happen to be more civilized than those in neighboring areas, and it seems more likely that differences in the laws and government social programs (or the lack thereof) are to be blamed (or credited) for the difference in the rates of violent crime.

Part 11

“Poverty Causes Crime” — The First False Equalitarian Argument

It’s worth mentioning that poverty cannot be the root cause of the disparity between Black and White rates for violent crime. According to the US Census, 11.2% of American Whites and 29.0% of American Blacks lived in poverty in 1995. Yes, a higher percentage of Blacks than Whites are poor. But how many poor Whites and poor Blacks are we talking about? Obviously poverty can’t motivate anybody who is not poor to commit a violent crime. In 1995, there were 218.3 million American Whites and 33.1 million American Blacks, which shows (after multiplying by the respective percentages) that there were 24.4 million poor Whites and 9.5 million poor Blacks living in the United States that year. Wetbacks to one side, poor “Americans” were 72% White and 28% Black in 1995. Poor Whites outnumbered poor Blacks by a ratio of 2.57 to one. If poverty were the fundamental cause of violent crime, as the equalitarians say it is, then for each 100 murders in the US committed by Blacks, about 257 murders would be committed by Whites. But that is not what happens. The fact is that about 55% of the murders in the United States are committed by Blacks. In other words, for each 100 murders committed by Blacks, only 82 murders are being committed by non-Blacks.

Even if you were to assume that Whites commit all the murders in the United States that Blacks do not commit, the Whites could only be responsible, at most, for 82 murders for each 100 murders perpetrated by Blacks. And keep in mind that there were 6.8 times more Whites than Blacks in America in 1995. These facts are in conflict with a prediction that can be reasonably drawn from the equalitarian theory, which is therefore wrong. Poverty isn’t the cause of Black violence, and the famous “poverty causes crime” hypothesis is an equalitarian myth.

Just to check, in 1998, 10.5% of American Whites and 26.5% of American Blacks lived in poverty. The Census Bureau estimates that there were were 223.0 million White Americans and 34.4 million Black US residents on July 1 of that year. At that time, then, there were 23.4 million poor Whites and 9.1 million poor Blacks living in the United States in 1998. The poor were once again 72% White and 28% Black, setting aside poor people of all other races. In 1998 as in 1995, poor Whites outnumbered poor Blacks by a ratio of 2.57 to one.

Equalitarians have a multi-layered onion of deceptive rhetoric:

(1) Deny that there’s such a thing as race.

(2) When forced (by medical/biological evidence) to admit the existence of different races, deny that there are any behavioral differences between them.

(3) When forced (e.g., by FBI crime statistics) to admit that there are racial differences in behavior, deny that race is the cause of those differences by asserting that poverty is the cause of them.

(4) When forced (by correlating crime rates with socio-economic status) to admit that poverty is not the cause of the statistical excess of Black violent behavior, assert that class-envy is the cause.

(5) When forced (by controlling for urban-rural factors in addition to socio-economic status) to admit that class-envy is not the cause of the statistical excess in Black violent behavior, assert that the other guy is a bigot, refuse to argue with him further, and begin all over again at step (1) the next time somebody else brings up the subject.

Equalitarians worship the doctrine of human equality: it is the one religion that they actually believe in, and they defend the idea that the races are equal in precisely the same way that Christians defend the idea that Jesus was the Son of God. The more the evidence piles up against the doctrine of racial equality, the more dogmatic the equalitarians will become in its support, and the harsher will be their criticisms of the proponents of racial truth. I’m not a Christian, but I’ll say this: it is much more likely that Jesus was divine than that the races are equal, since in the latter case we at least have positive evidence that the races are not equal.

Part 12

“Urbanization Causes Crime” — The Second False Equalitarian Argument (A)

Equalitarians hardly ever concede defeat in any part of a race debate because equalitarians are almost never honest debaters. But they will change their rationale, as slippery as an eel, and pretend never to have held any position that was just disproved in front of them. When confronted with facts such as those that I gave to prove that poverty does not cause violent crime, equalitarians will usually try to repair the hole shot in their egalitarian doctrine by shifting from a ‘poverty causes crime’ position to a ‘class-envy causes crime’ position. Suddenly it isn’t the conditions of poverty per se that lead to crime, but the sight of rich people driving by in their stretch limos on their way to posh restaurants for caviar buffets. Whereas earlier the equalitarian had been implying that unfulfilled basic needs drove poor Blacks to a life of crime, now the equalitarian is saying that jealousy (for which of course the Black criminals should not be blamed) is the problem. In rural areas, the poor and the rich don’t bump into each other much, while in urban areas there is more contact and, say the equalitarians, more opportunity for class-envy to arise and subsequently to motivate violent crime.

But this hypothesis is easily shot down as well. Compare Mississippi (over 30% Black) with West Virginia (about 3% Black). Both states are relatively rural. But Mississippi has the higher rates of violent crime. If you think that this comparison is atypical, then feel free to replace West Virginia with Iowa, or with North Dakota, or with any other mostly rural state-sized region with an at least 96% White majority. Or feel free to replace Mississippi with any other mostly rural state-sized region in which Blacks are more than 30% of the population. Then for good measure, try contrasting cities with essentially equal levels of urbanization but with differing racial demographics, to check out that side of the urban-rural scale. For example, you might compare crime rates in Washington DC with those in Colorado Springs. Again, you’ll see that racial composition makes a much better predictor of the rates for violent crimes than the degree of urbanization, and the equalitarian evasion of class-envy is thus refuted.

A while ago, I found (on separate websites) lists of US cities showing, in one case, the percentage of Blacks in the resident population and, in the other case, the per capita crime rate. The lists didn’t correspond to each other very well, with either list having cities not included in the other, and the demographic data was gathered in 1990 while the crime rate data was for 1994. For a few weeks, though, it was the best data I could find, so I made a study and estimated that the crime rate (Y) depended on the percentage of Blacks in the resident population (X) according to the equation:

Y = 748.168 (1.01562)^X From the equation, it seemed likely that an all-White urban area would probably have somewhere around 750 violent crimes per 100,000 population per year, while an all-Black urban area would probably have about 3500 violent crimes per 100,000 population per year. On the average. I recognized that the mismatch in the dates of the demographic data and the crime rate data might result in errors in the model, and I expressed a hope of finding better data soon.

Well, I did find better data, and it had been right under my nose. The source is Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1996, Table #46 and Table #311. Table #46 gives the percentages of US city populations by race, and Table #311 gives the cities’ murder rates per 100,000 population.

It didn’t surprise me that the cities with the most Blacks in them would also have the most crime. What did surprise me was the evidence that Hispanics don’t appear to have an elevated urban murder rate. (Hispanics in the United States are about 80% Mestizos, nevermind the government’s caveat that a Hispanic may be of any race.) I was surprised because crime rates in Western US states do appear to be correlated at the state level with the concentration of Hispanics. I think that Mestizos probably get along in each other’s company better than Blacks do, and that violence involving Mestizos may result from their antipathy toward persons of other races. Such antipathy is characteristic of Blacks, too, but Blacks are approximately as violent toward other Blacks as they are toward everyone else. Mestizos at least seem to take better care of each other, whatever danger they may represent to non-Mestizos.

Part 13

“Urbanization Causes Crime” — The Second False Equalitarian Argument (B)

Since the equation of the form

1 = A (Mestizos) + B (Blacks) + C (everybody else)

is the equation of a plane, and since this plane must intersect each axis at the point where the racial group it measures is 100% of the total population, a more natural way of showing the crime rates as a function of race would be to use the triangular plane segment having those three vertices. This triangle includes all the mathematically valid proportions of the two groups specifically measured and the group into which all others are lumped together, and furthermore every point in the triangle, including those on the borders, must represent a valid proportion of those groups. So we can simply take this triangle and stand it upright, like so:

When we fill in such a triangle with the government’s data for murder rates in US cities, we get the following picture:

And when we do the same thing for the fifty US states, we get this picture:

Essentially, the same pattern occurs regardless of the degree of urbanization involved. The least murder occurs where the Blacks and Mestizos are proportionately the scarcest, and the murder rate rises somewhat faster with increasing percentages of Blacks than it does with increasing percentages of Mestizos. The overall decrease in the rates, moving from the graph with the city murder rates to the graph with the state murder rates, is most likely the result of the fact that the cities have a higher fraction of Blacks and Mestizos in their populations than the rural areas do. In other words, the phenomenon of urban crime isn’t (primarily) the result of crowding, per se, but rather of the races of the people who are being crowded. If the countryside had as high a percentage of non-Whites as the cities did, there’s some reason to expect that the murder rates would be roughly the same, perhaps with only a small increase due to the higher population density of urban areas.

Anyway, out of the 74 cities in my sample, I selected the 31 cities having at least four times as many Blacks as Hispanics. I did that to focus on the murdering tendencies of Blacks and minimize the contribution of the Mestizo group as much as possible. The included cities were Philadelphia PA, Detroit MI, Indianapolis IN, Baltimore MD, Jacksonville FL, Columbus OH, Milwaukee WI, Memphis TN, Washington DC, Cleveland OH, Nashville TN, New Orleans LA, Kansas City MO, Virginia Beach VA, Charlotte NC, Atlanta GA, St. Louis MO, Tulsa OK, Pittsburg PA, Cincinnati OH, Minneapolis MN, Toledo OH, Buffalo NY, Louisville KY, Birmingham AL, Norfolk VA, St. Petersburg FL, Lexington KY, Baton Rouge LA, Akron OH, and Raleigh NC. While each of these cities has at least four times as many Blacks as Hispanics, the Black percentage of the population runs from 13.0% (Minneapolis) to 75.7% (Detroit). Graphing the murder rates per 100,000 population versus the percentage of Blacks gives a well-correlated run of points up the chart.

Graph information source: Check my work.

The next time an equalitarian tells you that Black crime is the result of “the degree of urbanization,” you can prove him wrong with that graph. When the urbanization factor is controlled (held constant), more murders still happen where more Blacks are. The least-squares fit to the data is

Y = 0.97388 X – 6.59434

where Y is the murder rate per 100,000 residents per year, and X is the percentage of the city population that is Black. An all-Black city would probably have an annual murder rate around 91 murders for each 100,000 residents. Obviously, no city can have a negative murder rate, so all that can be said of an all-White city is that it would probably have very few murders indeed.

Possibly, the negative intercept could be removed if the model used for the data were non-linear to some extent. For example, the least-squares parabola through all of the data excepting Washington, New Orleans, St. Louis, Cincinnati, and Kansas City is:

Y = +0.006816492 X² + 0.1080996 X + 8.225503

For the cities most distant from the trend curves, there is most likely some factor other than purely population composition has affecting the crime rates. That factor might be local official corruption, laxitude in the curbing of Black crime by the police, or a political disempowerment of Whites in the area. I don’t have the data necessary for a determination.

When all serious violent crimes are included in the study (murder, aggravated assault, rape, and robbery), the least-squares trend line is

Y = 34.1557 X + 589.689

where Y is the annual rate of serious violent crimes per 100,000 residents, and X is once again the percentage of the city’s population that is Black. (Yes, I used a linear fit this time, instead of an exponential function model.) A typical all-White city would probably have about 590 serious violent crimes per 100,000 residents per year. A typical all-Black city would probably have around 4000 serious violent crimes per 100,000 residents per year. The Black-to-White ratio of the per capita rates for violent crime perpetration for urban areas, thus estimated, is about 6.8, which is commensurate with the ratio when the same rates are estimated across the whole United States. The famous “degree of urbanization” hypothesis to explain Black violence is another equalitarian myth.

(Added 29 October 2002.) After further examining the dependence of per capita crime rates on both racial demographics and on the degree of urbanization, I find that I must amend what I said above as follows:

THE EFFECT OF URBANIZATION.

Urbanization does have an effect on the per capita murder rates for both Blacks and Whites.

Whites in the countryside commit about 25 murders per million Whites per year. Whites in the cities typically commit about 82 murders per million Whites per year.

Blacks in the countryside commit around 230 murders per million Blacks per year. Blacks in the cities commit about 872 murders per million Blacks per year.

An average Black is 9.5 times more likely to commit murder than an average White.

An average city dweller is 3.5 times more likely to commit murder than an average resident of the countryside.

The effect of race is thus found to be 2.7 times greater than the effect of urbanization.

I’ve written a program in GWbasic that can calculate my estimate of the expected per capita murder rate in an area, given the overall population density and the Black percentage of the population.

Part 14

Exceptions

The general trend for the 50 US states, as well as for the major US cities, is that the higher the percentage of non-Whites there is in the population, the higher the rate of violent crime is. (I’m not the first to have noticed the correlation. It was also pointed out in Ideology and censorship in behavior genetics by Glayde Whitney, Past President Behavior Genetics Association Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, in Vol. 35 of Mankind Quarterly, 06-01-1995, pp 327.)

Massachusetts is a state with a population that is 5.7% Black and 5.7% Hispanic, but it has a violent crime rate of over 800 crimes per 100,000 persons per year. The racial demographics for Massachusetts are similar to those in Kansas and Rhode Island, but the rate of violent crimes in Massachusetts is roughly twice that in those other two states. It is tempting to conclude that there is something wrong with the way the law works in Massachusetts.

Massachusetts is a (fairly) White state, though by no means is it among the nation’s Whitest. But in relation to the percentage of Blacks and Hispanic residents, Massachusetts has an above-the-trend crime rate. One equalitarian, arguing with me on the MSNBC board titled “Race in America” (which was terminated by MSNBC shortly after racists started beating the equalitarians in debates) pointed to Massachusetts and argued that it was the Whites who were doing the crimes there. But when I studied the county-level crime data, here is what I found:

Graph information source: Check my work.

Even if this equalitarian had found in Massachusetts a state that bucked the trend of the other 49 states (plus the District of Columbia), an exception would have been all he would have found. He would not have disproved the rule of the general trend: Whites are more lawful than non-Whites. But even in Massachusetts, although it is a mostly White state, it is the Blacks and Hispanics who are committing most of the crimes there, too. This equalitarian hadn’t even found an exception.

Texas has a lower rate of violent crime than California, despite the fact that Texas has a higher percentage of Blacks and a roughly equal percentage of Hispanics, as compared with California. One of my correspondents reports that there may be a relatively higher incidence of racial prejudice on the part of Whites in Texas than in California, which, he speculates, might be causing an increased White wariness toward people of color. And I’ve noticed that Texas executes death-row prisoners faster than any other state.

As mentioned in Part 10 Mississippi and Virginia have fewer violent crimes than would be expected from the trend of the other US states.

There are three counties in South Carolina (Greenville, Spartanburg and York Counties) that had elevated rates for violent crimes between 1990 and 1993 that cannot be explained by their racial compositions. Interestingly, the three counties are almost together in the northern part of the state, along or near a stretch of Interstate 85. If I were a senior law enforcement official for the State of South Carolina, I’d suspect that there might have been some specific factor that might give these counties’ crime rates for those years some coherence — something beyond random criminal activity.

Those are the major anomalies. The overall trend, however, swamps them. White areas are safer than non-White areas, unless equalitarian laws and social policies work very hard to spoil things for the Whites anyway.

Part 15

The Anti-White Bias of the Jewish Media

To convince skeptics (read: equalitarians) that there really is a dependence of violent crime rates on race, I invite renewed contemplation of my graph entitled Violent Crime Rate of US States vs. Black and Hispanic Percentages (it’s in Part 10). It would be difficult indeed to come up with an alternative hypothesis for why all the lowest-crime states are those with the lowest percentages of non-Whites, other than the simple and obvious explanation that practically screams to be noticed: Whites are more lawful, by and large, than non-Whites. Since the “poverty” and “degree of urbanization” explanations have been shown to be equalitarian myths, there’s no reason why the red, orange, yellow, green and blue dots aren’t more evenly distributed around the graph — no reason, that is, except for racial differences between Whites and Blacks.

The largely Jewish-controlled media strive mightily to create an appearance contrary to the racial facts, with respect to violent crime. Their agenda seems to be to instill within Whites an artificial and undeserved sense of racial guilt. That way, Whites can be more easily manipulated into a Zionist scheme to mix the races together (biologically) and produce a world of racially amorphous people. Such people would lack any definite biological or cultural heritage, about which they might form nationalist ideologies in conflict with their Jewish masters.

While such a scheme might seem implausible because of the small portion of the world’s population that is Jewish, it must be remembered that the world’s most powerful countries are governed on the democratic principle, electing their leaders in what amounts to periodic national popularity contests. In such contests, the media determines who will be popular by managing the information about the election candidates that becomes available to the voters. The Jews have, by a combination of ownership and mercantile pressure, control of the media. The Jews, therefore, determine who will be elected. The Jews, therefore, are in charge of domestic policies, although they usually work their will through a non-Jewish elected official who is, essentially, their puppet.

That requires some clarification. The political parties are aware from before the start of an election season that the media will give good press only to pro-Jewish/Zionist election candidates and that any other candidate will be made to look goofy (at best). The political parties know from the beginning that their campaigns will have a lot more money to spend campaigning if their nominees are favored by the Jews. This ensures that any set of candidates, regardless of which parties are backing them, in any election will already have been winnowed by the Jews before they are presented to the public for the election at large. In a sense, then, the biggest part of the Jewish control of our government occurs quite a ways upstream of the ballot box. But in case some rich White contender with ideas at variance with Zionism’s agenda should appear on a soapbox somewhere, the Jews can still prevent his election by tarring him in front of the public with the mass media.

By the way, that is why so many of the political leaders are among the nation’s most morally corrupt men. Such men have “skeletons in the closet,” which the Jews are able to discover through (what is termed) Investigative Journalism. An elected official who is compromised morally, and perhaps legally as well, can be threatened with exposure and possible punishment for his sins. Above all, the Jews desire to control the nations through control of their leaders, and they accordingly prefer a corrupt candidate in an election to one who has no stain on his record. The political parties understand this as well. They know that they will be more likely to win if their candidate has the Jews’ favor, so they have an incentive to provide the Jews with a candidate who is agreeably vulnerable to blackmail. None of this process is openly discussed, since it is THE dirty secret of American politics, but all of it is understood by those involved.

To smooth the way for their official front-man, their Jewish media manages the news in a way calculated to deceive and confuse the public, by playing up the news stories that “fit” the agenda, and by minimizing or blacking-out the news stories that don’t fit.

A good example of that bias can be found in media’s very different treatment of two very similar murders. One murder occurred in Jasper, Texas, and involved a White killer (John William King, an ex-convict) and a Black victim (James Byrd, an ex-convict). The other murder occurred in Streator, Illinois, and involved a Black ex-convict killer and a 46-year-old White woman victim. In both murders, the killers murdered the victims by dragging them behind a vehicle (a car or a truck). Everyone heard about the Jasper murder because the media chose to sensationalize it. The media sensationalized the Jasper murder because it “fit” the Jews’ program to make White people feel guilty about “racism.” But hardly anybody heard about the dragging death of Patricia Stansfield, the White woman killed by a Black in Streator. The media suppressed the news about the Streator murder because it did not fit the Jews’ agenda. The media bias is just as blatant and as dishonest as it can possibly be. If the Jews’ control over the media were only partial, rather than nearly total, they wouldn’t be able to get away with deception this brazen.

Patricia Stansfield was killed on 1 August 1998. The accused murderer’s name is Christopher Coleman. Allegedly, Coleman stole a car belonging to one of Ms. Stansfield’s friends and, after tying Ms. Stansfield to the rear of the car, drove for two miles out of Streator along Highway 18.

A small list of some of the crimes the Jewish media have covered up is given on my page about Violent Crimes against Whites.

Part 16

Racial Theory Predicts Murder Rates in Washington DC

There is clearly a strong correlation between the percentage of a region’s non-White population and the rate of violent crime in that region. Combining Blacks and Mestizos for simplicity (hey, the FBI does it to Whites, so fair’s fair), we get the picture shown in the graph entitled Crime Rate versus Percent of Population that is Black or Hispanic (it’s in Part 9). The correlation coefficient for that data spread is +0.85, indicating that there may be some sort of relationship between the variables being graphed. (There is a class of ‘spurious correlations’ in which two variables both depend on a third, so a correlation of two graphed variables doesn’t prove a direct cause-effect relationship between them.) Notice the point in the upper right corner of the graph. That point represents the District of Columbia, which has a higher percentage of Blacks (68%) than any US state does. Combined with Mestizos, DC is 71% non-White. Let’s remember that percentage, because I’m going to use it to test a theory about the non-linearity of the dependence of crime rate on the percentage of Blacks in a region’s population.

Consider, now, the data in the following three graphs showing the crime rates for the most populous counties in Georgia, Alabama and Virginia.

Graph information source: Check my work.

Graph information source: Check my work.

Graph information source: Check my work.

Notice the upward-swinging curve of the least-squares fit to the data in each case. The equations of the curve fit are given on the charts, but I’ll repeat them here.

Georgia:
Y = 11.1973 (1.04516)^XAlabama:
Y = 13.2727 (1.04551)^X

Virginia:
Y = 4.98918 (1.06096)^X

where Y is the FOUR TIMES the murder rate in “murders per 100,000 population per year”,

where X is the percentage of the population that is Black or Hispanic.

More precisely, Y is the combined murder rate per 100,000 population for the years 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993 for the selected counties in these states.little algebra would tell you that the combination of these three equations, equally weighted, gives:

Overall:
Y = 9.05108 (1.05052)^x

Remember that Washington, DC, had a “Black or Hispanic percentage” of 71%. If we were to substitute 71 in the equations for those states, in order to predict the violent crime rate of Washington, DC, we would get

Y = 257.7 murders per 100,000 population per FOUR years (using the Georgia model)

Y = 312.8 murders per 100,000 population per FOUR years (using the Alabama model)

Y = 333.2 murders per 100,000 population per FOUR years (using the Virginia model)

Y = 299.5 murders per 100,000 population per FOUR years (using the overall model)

Dividing by four to get the annual murder rate predictions for the District of Columbia,

Y = 64.4 murders per 100,000 population per year (GA model)

Y = 78.2 murders per 100,000 population per year (AL model)

Y = 83.3 murders per 100,000 population per year (VA model)

Y = 74.9 murders per 100,000 population per year (overall)

In 1990, there were 472 murders in the District of Columbia. The population of DC that year was 606,900 persons. Thus the actual murder rate for DC in 1990 was: 77.8 murders per 100,000 population per year.

(In 1991, it was 80.6. In 1992, 75.2. In 1993, 78.5.)

Having given the data (and their extrapolation) more thought, I consider that it is unlikely that the exponential fit will continue to hold up for much past 70 percent. I think that it is more likely that the rise of Black dominance in an area shifts the rate of violent crimes from one (nearly) linear pattern to another, with the change-over occurring somewhere around a 40 percent Black infestation. Perhaps there would have to be a transition curve between the White dominant and Black dominant patterns. More data is needed to answer the question in a definite way.

Part 17

Is the Racial Factor in Violent Crime Rates Non-Linear?

The upward swinging, exponential models used to curve fit the data from selected counties in Georgia, Alabama and Virginia produce good predictions for the murder rate in the District of Columbia, suggesting that as the proportion of Blacks in the population of a region increases, only a part of the rise in “Black violence” is due directly to the increased concentration of Blacks. An extra criminal factor seems to enter the picture as Blacks acquire the political clout necessary for determining the laws and culture of the region; i.e., as Whites lose that same power. In the affairs of state as well as in ghetto life, it would appear that Blacks are their own worst enemy.

This hypothesis could likewise explain the sudden surge of violent crime rates in South Africa after the change to Black rule in that country, and likewise for other African countries that were once under White rule and relatively peaceful that afterward changed to Black rule and are now relatively quite violent.

On the other hand, there is a competing hypothesis. Whereas it can be demonstrated that the phenomenon of Black violence isn’t accounted for by the degree of urbanization — i.e., the violent crime rates of cities are positively well-correlated with the percentage of Blacks in the resident population — urbanization might account for some degree of non-linearity in the graph of certain county-level data. To see that this idea is plausible, refer to the graph entitled Murder Rate versus Blacks in US Cities (it’s in Part 13). If you interpolate the crime rate for a hypothetical trend-line city having 71% Blacks, you get a result of 62.6 murders per 100,000 population per year, which is nearer to the actual murder rate for Washington, DC, than the prediction from the trend line for US counties having the largest populations and having Blacks as their largest minority. The urbanization of the jurisdictions represented by the former trend line seems to account partially for the non-linearity sometimes observed in trends for jurisdictions for which urbanization is not controlled.

The non-linearity of the relationship between racial composition and crime rate does not always appear when a study is confined to regions having non-White fractions under 50%. For example, the data spread on the graph below is highly linearly correlated.

Graph information source: Check my work.

However, if one were to attempt to extrapolate the murder rate for the District of Columbia from the linear least-squares fit to those data, i.e.,

Y = 0.751035 X – 5.108180

one would calculate that rate to be 48.2 murders per 100,000 population per year, which is too low. This further supports the hypothesis that White rule mitigates Black violent tendencies to some extent; however, that mitigating effect comes at the cost of exposing White people to the harmful consequences of living among Blacks.

Part 18

A Warning to Whites

The following graphs are based on demographic information and projections by the U.S. Bureau of the Census.

Government analysis of demographic trends indicates that after 2055, if present non-White immigration and birthrates continue, White people will be a minority in the United States. No one should imagine that the tide of Black violence will recede as their proportion of the total population grows. Rather, in case after case, when crime rates are studied for jurisdictions in the United States, the higher is the proportion of Blacks (and likewise for certain other non-Whites), the higher is the rate of violence — and not only that: after Blacks become a majority, the violence from them accelerates. They do not become complacent once they have political powers; they only become more aggressive, once they have learned that the law is whatever they say it is.

A good question to ask is whether there are other parts of the world in which the White percentage of the population is rising to offset White losses in North America. No. There are none. The White race is losing ground in Europe and Australia too. It’s happening everywhere.

If studies done in the United States aren’t good enough for you, then read up on the history of Haiti (San Dominique), Zaire (Belgian Congo), Zimbabwe (Rhodesia), and, most recently, South Africa. Apparently, the United States is next to fall. If Whites permit it, non-Whites, led by Jews and assisted by equalitarian Whites, will do to us what they have done to so many others. And they will do it, unless someone stops them.