Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Other Losses : Suppressed History’ Category

Read Full Post »


Goebbels and World War II Propaganda
By Mark Weber
Source: Institute for Historical Review

Apart from Hitler himself, perhaps the most fascinating figure of Third Reich Germany is the regime’s chief publicist and spokesman, Joseph Goebbels. He is widely portrayed as a master of lies and deceitful propaganda. But this familiar image, which is particularly entrenched in the United States, is itself a propaganda falsehood.

He was raised in a middle-class, Roman Catholic family in a medium-size city in the German Rhineland. He had a first-rate education, and was an outstanding student. At the age of 24, he earned a doctorate in philosophy from the University of Heidelberg. After an unsuccessful effort to find employment as a writer for major national daily papers, and a nine-month stint working at a bank in Cologne, he became an activist in the fledgling National Socialist Party.

In 1926, at the age of 29, Hitler appointed him party district leader, or Gauleiter, of Berlin. He lost no time taking firm control of the small and feuding Party organization in the nation’s most important city, and infusing it with new dynamism. He quickly proved himself a quick-witted and sharp-tongued public speaker, and a courageous, skilled and creative organizer.

In early 1933, six weeks after Hitler became Chancellor, the 35-year-old Goebbels was named “Reich Minister for Propaganda and Popular Enlightenment.” In this newly-created position, and then as President of the “Reich Culture Chamber” (Reichskulturkammer), he exercised wide control over Germany’s newspapers, radio broadcasting, motion pictures, magazines and book publishing. More than anyone else, he set the parameters and tone of the nation’s mass media and cultural life.

During the first years of the Second World War, 1939 to 1942, his job was relatively easy. With an almost unbroken string of German and Axis military victories, maintaining public morale was not difficult. His greatest challenge came during the final two years of the war, as Germany’s armies suffered ever more terrible military reverses, and as her great cities were battered into ruins under a growing storm of murderous British-American bombing. It was during this period, as utter defeat loomed, that Goebbels most strikingly proved his skill as a master molder of public opinion. In spite of the drastically worsening situation — both on the front lines and at home — he largely succeeded in maintaining public morale, confidence in Hitler’s leadership, and even hope.

One of the best profiles of this man is the biography by German historian Helmut Heiber. Although his portrayal is highly critical and generally unflattering, the author nonetheless acknowledges his subject’s extraordinary talents and abilities. Goebbels, he notes, “was able, until the very last minute, to encourage and exploit a blind trust in Hitler and his genius. It is indeed one of the macabre phenomena of the Third Reich that even in their country’s agony the mass of the German people remained docile and faithful to Hitler’s banner … In spite of everything they had experienced, they kept the faith.”

After the great defeat at Stalingrad in early 1943, Goebbels was the first official forthrightly to acknowledge the gravity of the peril that faced the nation and Europe, and frankly to concede that Germany could lose the war. His frankness and even courage during these increasingly difficult months won him a measure of popular admiration. Writes Heiber: “As other influential Nazis began to creep into their shells, Goebbels could dare to appear before a mob and not only gain a hearing, but even arouse faith and hope …”

As the war dragged on, Goebbels’ front-page editorial essays in the weekly paper Das Reich played an increasingly important role in sustaining public morale. They were widely reprinted and routinely read over the radio. “His articles in Das Reich were indeed excellent, brilliantly written, and full of bright ideas,” Heiber writers. He goes on: “Goebbels’ articles were carefully worked out more than a week before they were to appear, written in excellent, polished German, stylistically enjoyable and relatively discriminating in content; often they seemed illumined by the lofty wisdom of a great thinker. Their very titles were reminiscent of philosophical treatises: `On the Meaning of War,’ `The Essential Nature of the Crisis,’ `On the Work of the Spirit,’ `On Speaking and Being Silent,’ `The Indispensability of Freedom,’ `About National Duty in War.’ … It is all very well turned and very solid. These articles made an impression, and Goebbels knew it.”

During this period, he also directed German newspapers, magazines and newsreels to stress the themes of continental unity and a common European destiny, and the goal of building a peaceful and prosperous community of nations. (One notable exception to this was a kind of official silence regarding Poland and the Poles. And, of course, the German media was vehemently anti-Jewish.)

In keeping with the outlook of Germany’s wartime leadership, Goebbels instructed the German press, radio and newsreels to portray other nations and ethnic groups tactfully, and with regard for the sovereignty and national character of other peoples. He stressed the importance of treating other nations and peoples with tact and respect.

This outlook was laid out in confidential guidelines to the German media In February 1943, Goebbels issued an internal directive in which he ordered:

“The entire propaganda work of the National Socialist Party (NSDAP) and the [German] National Socialist state must accordingly be organized to make clear, not just to the German nation, but also to the other European peoples, including the peoples in the occupied Eastern territories, and in the countries still under [Soviet] Bolshevik rule, that the victory of Adolf Hitler and of German arms is in their own most basic self interest.

“It is therefore inappropriate to hurt the feelings of inner self-worth of these peoples, directly or indirectly, especially those of the eastern nationalities, particularly in public speeches or writings … Stalin and the Bolshevik system should be attacked as bestial, but not the peoples who have been subdued by them.

“Similarly inappropriate is any discussion of the future new order of Europe that might create the impression among people of foreign nationality that the German leadership intends to maintain any long-term relationship of subjugation .

“Completely out of place are any remarks suggesting that Germany might set up colonies in the East or carry out a colonial policy, or would treat the land or its inhabitants as objects of exploitation . …

“Following their systematic destruction by the Bolsheviks [in accord with Stalin’s `scorched earth’ order of July 1941], the occupied Eastern territories will be rebuilt under German leadership. With the riches of the soil, this will secure, for the long-term future, freedom in food and raw materials, as well as the social advancement for Germany and all of Europe, and, thereby, also for the peoples living in the East.”

A few weeks later, in mid-March 1943, Goebbels reinforced these “guiding principles” in a talk to foreign journalists about the “new Europe.” He said:

“The severe measures that Germany has been forced by the war situation to introduce in the occupied Eastern territories are valid only for the duration of the war. The new Europe will be held together not by compulsion, but rather it will be built on the basis of free will. There will be no dictatorship over the various nations of Europe. Individual national identity will not be extinguished … No European country will be obliged to introduce any particular social-political system. If countries want to hold on to their traditional democracy, that’s their own business.”

One of the most emotionally moving and enduring chapters of the Second World War is the mass killing at Katyn and other places in April 1940 by Soviet secret police of some 14,000 Polish officers and Polish intellectuals, who had been captured and rounded up when eastern Poland was invaded and occupied by the Soviets half a year earlier. For decades this has been an especially painful subject for the Polish people, because this was the annihilation not merely of thousands of fellow Poles, but of a significant portion of the nation’s intellectual, political and military leadership. (This grim story is movingly dramatized, for example, in the 2007 Polish feature film, titled Katyn.)

In April 1943 Germany announced to the world that a mass grave of murdered Poles had been discovered in the Katyn forest, near Smolensk, in occupied Russia. Goebbels saw to it that this sensational news was prominently highlighted in the German media. In accord with his instructions, newspapers and magazines devoted great attention to the story, giving it weeks of detailed, often front-page coverage.

In London, officials of the Polish government in exile took a keen interest in this discovery, because for several years Soviet officials had refused to provide any information to Polish authorities about the fate of the thousands of Polish officers that the Soviets had taken prisoner in 1939, and of whom all trace had been lost since the spring of 1940. Shortly after the German announcement, Polish officials in London asked the International Committee of the Red Cross in neutral Switzerland to investigate. The German authorities quickly agreed. This prompted the Soviet government to accuse the Poles of collusion with the Germans, and then to break relations with the Polish government in London.

Goebbels traced the unfolding of this story in his diary. In the entry of April 14, 1943, he noted: “We are now using the discovery of 12,000 Polish officers, murdered by the GPU [Soviet secret police], for anti-Bolshevik propaganda on a grand scale. We sent neutral journalists and Polish intellectuals to the spot where they were found … I give instructions to make the widest possible use of this propaganda material.” (In fact, the number of Poles killed was about 14,000, of whom some 4,500 were shot and buried at Katyn. Most were killed by the Soviets at two other sites.)

Three days later, he noted: “The Katyn incident is developing into a gigantic political affair which may have wide repercussions. We are exploiting it in every manner possible.” In the dairy entry of April 27, he reports: “The Katyn incident has taken a really sensational turn through the fact that the Soviets have broken off diplomatic relations with the Poles, giving the attitude of the Polish government-in-exile [with regard to the Katyn matter] as the reason.”

The next day, in the entry of April 28, Goebbels remarked with some pride: “The most important theme of all international discussion is naturally the break between Moscow and the Polish émigré government. All enemy broadcasts and newspapers agree that this break represents a one hundred percent victory for German propaganda and especially for me personally. The commentators marvel at the extraordinary cleverness with which we have been able to convert the Katyn incident into a highly political question …One can speak of a complete triumph of German propaganda. Throughout this whole war we have seldom been able to register such a success.”

And the next day, in the entry of April 29, Goebbels noted: “The Polish conflict still holds the center of the stage. Seldom since the beginning of the war has any affair stirred up so much public discussion as this. The Poles are given a brush-off by the English and the Americans as if they were enemies. It is admitted that I succeeded in driving a deep wedge into the enemy…”

The break in relations between the Soviet and Polish governments was major diplomatic and public relations setback for the Allied war effort. It made an embarrassing mockery of the goals proclaimed by the Allied leaders. It underscored the pretense and hypocrisy of the claims of the British, American and Soviet governments that they were fighting for freedom and democracy. In his skillful and energetic treatment of the Katyn massacre story, Goebbels contributed significantly to a major Allied political defeat — and thereby scored what was perhaps his greatest single wartime propaganda achievement.

It’s worth comparing how the Katyn massacre was dealt with in the German wartime media, which was under Goebbels’ supervision, with how it was treated in the American media during this same period. Not only in Germany, but across Europe, the press and other media gave prominent and detailed attention to this story, and to the break in relations between the Polish and Soviet governments that it triggered.

In the United States, newspapers and magazines understandably gave much less attention to the Katyn affair, but they could not entirely ignore it, especially after it brought on an embarrassing break in the Allied coalition. The American media, acting in harmony with the views and interests of the US government and of America’s most important military ally, the Soviet Union, basically treated the Katyn matter as a German propaganda lie.

The tone for how this was handled in the US media was set by the Office of War Information, an official US government propaganda agency. Its director, Elmer Davis, spoke about Katyn in a radio broadcast on May 3, 1943, in which he dismissed the German reports on this as a great propaganda hoax.

American newspapers echoed this official view. Writing in The New York Times, foreign affairs commentator Anne O’Hare McCormick, explained to readers of that influential daily that there was no proof that the officers had even been killed. William L. Shirer, a prominent American journalist, who is perhaps best known for his best-selling but historically deceitful book, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, dismissed the Berlin reports on Katyn as “German propaganda.”

The United Press, a major US wire service news agency, dealt with the matter in a dispatch that appeared in many American newspapers. This UP item, which was typical of American press treatment of the matter, referred to what it called the “alleged” disappearance of the Polish officers which, it went on, “has been used by the Berlin radio for propaganda purposes. The Germans claim the men were killed.”

Another prominent American daily paper explained that the German reports about Katyn had been “concocted with diabolical cunning.” In the US capital, The Washington Post told readers that “the assumption of loyal members of the United Nations [that is, the alliance headed by the US, Britain and the Soviet Union] must be that they [the Poles] were killed by the Germans.”

While Germany’s wartime media was not always entirely accurate or fair, with regard to this very important chapter of World War II, Goebbels and the German media told the truth, while American officials and the US media told lies.

In addition to his work as the nation’s chief spokesman and propagandist, Goebbels took on ever greater organizational and policy-making responsibilities during the war, playing an increasingly important role in keeping the nation’s industrial and social machinery functioning.

In the summer of 1944 Hitler named him “Reich Plenipotentiary for the Total War Mobilization.” Thus, during the final catastrophic months of the war, Goebbels — along with Armaments Minister Albert Speer — directed Germany’s human and material resources for maximum war production, while simultaneously seeing to the continued operation of the nation’s electric power and water plants, transportation and telephone systems, food and fuel supply networks, public schools, radio broadcasting and daily newspaper publishing.

This organizational feat of keeping essential social and community services functioning, while at the same time maintaining and even increasing armaments production — in spite of devastating aerial bombardment and an ever worsening military situation — is an achievement without historical parallel.

His final radio address to the nation, broadcast over what remained of a tattered network, was delivered on April 19, 1945, twelve days before his death. As he had done every year since 1933, he spoke on the eve of Hitler’s birthday. Even on this occasion, when the terrible end was glaringly obvious to all, Goebbels spoke with eloquent, controlled passion. While frankly acknowledging the supreme gravity of the situation, he was still able to persuade and inspire.

Contrary to the propaganda image that millions have come to accept, Goebbels was successful as a publicist and spokesman not because he was a master of the “Big Lie,” but rather as a result of his regard for accuracy and truth.

As biographer Heiber notes: “Goebbels was accordingly able to celebrate his information policy as being not only superior to the enemy’s in its monolithic character, but also of a `seriousness and credibility’ which `simply cannot be surpassed.’ The boast could be made with some justification: Seen in the long view, Goebbels preached, the best propaganda is that which does no more than serve the truth. Goebbels’ real lies, his conscious lies, always pertained to mere detail … Goebbels’ lies were more in the nature of those equivocations and evasions by which government spokesmen everywhere seek to ‘protect’ the ‘national interest’.”

The postwar image of Goebbels as a master dissembler is itself a propaganda distortion, explains French scholar Jacques Ellul in his classic study, Propaganda. He writes:

“There remains the problem of Goebbels’ reputation. He wore the title of Big Liar (bestowed by Anglo-Saxon propaganda) and yet he never stopped battling for propaganda to be as accurate as possible. He preferred being cynical and brutal to being caught in a lie. He used to say: `Everybody must know what the situation is.’ He was always the first to announce disastrous events or difficult situations, without hiding anything. The result was a general belief between 1939 and 1942 that German communiqués not only were more concise, clearer and less cluttered, but were more truthful than Allied communiqués … and, furthermore, that the Germans published all the news two or three days before the Allies. All this is so true that pinning the title of Big Liar on Goebbels must be considered quite a propaganda success.”

In a letter to his stepson written just days before his death, Goebbels expressed confidence that truth would ultimately prevail: “Do not let yourself be disconcerted by the worldwide clamor that will now begin. There will come a day, when all the lies will collapse under their own weight, and truth will again triumph.”

This is an edited text of an address given by Mark Weber on April 23, 2011, at a meeting in southern California.

Sources / For Further Reading

Benjamin Colby, ‘Twas a Famous Victory (Arlington House, 1975), esp. chap. 6.

Jacques Ellul, Propaganda (New York: 1965, 1973)

Joseph Goebbels, The Goebbels Diaries, 1942-1943. Edited by Louis P. Lochner. (Doubleday & Co., 1948)

Helmut Heiber, Goebbels (New York: 1972, 1983)

David Irving, Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich (St. Martin’s Press. 1996)

Walter Lipgens, ed., Documents On The History of European Integration: Plans For European Union (De Gruyter, 1985, 1991), Vol. I , esp. pp. 118-119, 121-122.

Mark Weber, “Goebbels’ Place in History,” The Journal of Historical Review, 1995.

Read Full Post »

What you do not know has always been, and will always be, used against you. If you do not wish to be manipulated, you have to study, seriously and independently, the various subjects which the world’s greatest manipulators have either hidden or strategically forbidden. The deeper they’ve been buried and the darker their depth, the greater the source (and force) of the light you will have unearthed. Whatever perils the winding course of unpopular truth may bring, these are preferable, by far, to any safe and/or comfortable alternatives if they serve the elevated cause of enlightenment, empowerment and liberation. Whatever you have to bear, so be it. The value of all action toward such ends must never be underestimated. To dare is to know. To know is to prevail.

Support Castle Hill Publishers/VHO. Support all revisionist links and free, critical thinkers championed by Ironlight. Nothing here is superfluous. Reassess what you think you know and all you’ve inherited in this dark age. Whatever is faulty will inevitably be destroyed in the process, and whatever is factual will only be strengthened again and again. -W.

Visit: Castle Hill Publishers/VHO

Read Full Post »

Racial Violence in America
Published by admin, on October 7th, 2010
By Jerry Abbott and National Vanguard staff
Source: National Vanguard

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.

Whites, Blacks, and Violent Crime
Sources: Census Bureau and FBI Uniform Crime Reports
U.S. Population in 1994

74.0% White, 12.5% Black, 9.1% Hispanic, 3.5% Asian

Perpetrators of Murder
1993 – 40.7% White, 57.6% Black
1995 – 43.4% White, 54.4% Black
Perpetrators of Rape
1993 – 56.9% White, 41.3% Black
1995 – 55.6% White, 42.4% Black
Perpetrators of Robbery
1993 – 36.5% White, 62.1% Black
1995 – 38.7% White, 59.5% Black
Perpetrators of Assault
1993 – 58.4% White, 39.8% Black
1995 – 59.6% White, 38.4% Black
The average Black commits murder 7.9 times as often as the average White.
(Frank Borzellieri puts the ratio more recently at 8.5.)

The average Black commits (reported) rape 4.4 times as often as the average White.

If all rapes were reported, the Black to White ratio would be closer to 11.*

The average Black commits armed robbery 9.6 times as often as the average White.
The average Black commits theft 17 times as often as the average White.*

The average Black commits aggravated assault 3.9 times as often as the average White.
The average Black commits simple assault about 22 times as often as the average White.*

* 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

Whites, Blacks and Murder – 1995
Murder in the United States by race and age with additional details
Sources: Crime in the United States, 1995, Table 2.6, and Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1996, Table 24.
Age Group Murders committed by US population (thousands) Population
Ratio
White / Black
Per Capita Rate of Murder Perpetration, Ratio of Black to White
Whites Blacks Whites Blacks
9 – 12 12 17 12074 2349 5.140 7.3
13 – 16 492 723 11677 2301 5.075 7.5
17 – 19 1117 1675 8697 1647 5.281 7.9
20 – 24 1398 2067 14528 2669 5.443 8.0
25 – 34 1733 1711 34027 5475 6.215 6.1
35 – 44 1108 771 35081 5088 6.895 4.8
45 – 54 479 302 25852 3122 8.281 5.2
55 – 64 192 115 18355 2124 8.642 5.2
65 – 74 104 48 16822 1629 10.327 4.8
total or average 6635 7429 177113 26404 6.708 7.5
Whites, Blacks and Murder – 1996
Murder in the United States by race and age with additional details
Sources: Crime in the United States, 1996, Table 2.6, and Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1996, Table 24.
Age Group Murders committed by US population (thousands) Population
Ratio
White / Black
Per Capita Rate of Murder Perpetration, Ratio of Black to White
Whites Blacks Whites Blacks
9 – 12 6 7 12196 2398 5.086 5.9
13 – 16 388 498 11837 2335 5.069 6.5
17 – 19 1009 1437 8746 1662 5.262 7.5
20 – 24 1189 1761 14548 2688 5.412 8.0
25 – 34 1417 1462 33328 5427 6.141 6.3
35 – 44 911 728 35492 5153 6.888 5.5
45 – 54 430 250 26789 3288 8.148 4.5
55 – 64 189 79 18752 2173 8.630 3.6
65 – 74 73 38 16701 1640 10.184 5.3
total or average 5612 6260 178389 26764 6.665 7.4
Whites, Blacks and Murder – 1997
Murder in the United States by race and age with additional details
Sources: Crime in the United States, 1997, Table 2.6, and Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1996, Table 24.
Age Group Murders committed by US population (thousands) Population
Ratio
White / Black
Per Capita Rate of Murder Perpetration, Ratio of Black to White
Whites Blacks Whites Blacks
9 – 12 6 14 12318 2447 5.034 7.8
13 – 16 333 384 11997 2369 5.064 5.8
17 – 19 929 1260 8795 1677 5.244 7.1
20 – 24 1114 1616 14568 2707 5.382 7.8
25 – 34 1301 1377 32629 5379 6.066 6.4
35 – 44 822 638 35903 5218 6.881 5.3
45 – 54 434 237 27726 3454 8.027 4.4
55 – 64 162 88 19149 2222 8.618 4.7
65 – 74 77 42 16581 1652 10.037 5.5
total or average 5178 5656 179666 27125 6.624 7.2
Whites, Blacks and Murder – 1998
Murder in the United States by race and age with additional details
Sources: Crime in the United States, 1998, Table 2.6, and Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1996, Table 24.
Age Group Murders committed by US population (thousands) Population
Ratio
White / Black
Per Capita Rate of Murder Perpetration, Ratio of Black to White
Whites Blacks Whites Blacks
9 – 12 5 12 12440 2496 4.984 12.0
13 – 16 282 276 12157 2403 5.059 5.0
17 – 19 910 1018 8844 1692 5.227 5.8
20 – 24 1127 1480 14588 2726 5.351 7.0
25 – 34 1380 1275 31930 5331 5.989 5.5
35 – 44 927 598 36314 5283 6.874 4.4
45 – 54 415 244 28663 3620 7.918 4.7
55 – 64 166 82 19546 2271 8.607 4.3
65 – 74 59 36 16461 1664 9.892 6.0
total or average 5271 5021 180943 27486 6.583 6.3
Whites, Blacks and Murder – 1999
Murder in the United States by race and age with additional details
Sources: Crime in the United States, 1999, Table 2.6, and Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1996, Table 24.
Age Group Murders committed by US population (thousands) Population
Ratio
White / Black
Per Capita Rate of Murder Perpetration, Ratio of Black to White
Whites Blacks Whites Blacks
9 – 12 7 11 12562 2545 4.936 7.8
13 – 16 218 247 12317 2437 5.054 5.7
17 – 19 672 976 8893 1707 5.210 7.6
20 – 24 978 1285 14608 2745 5.322 7.0
25 – 34 1112 1089 31231 5283 5.912 5.8
35 – 44 788 531 36725 5348 6.867 4.6
45 – 54 389 207 29600 3786 7.818 4.2
55 – 64 144 84 19943 2320 8.596 5.1
65 – 74 70 27 16341 1676 9.750 3.8
total or average 4378 4457 182220 27847 6.544 6.7
Whites, Blacks and Murder – 2000
Murder in the United States by race and age with additional details
Sources: Crime in the United States, 2000, Table 2.6, and Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1996, Table 24.
Age Group Murders committed by US population (thousands) Population
Ratio
White / Black
Per Capita Rate of Murder Perpetration, Ratio of Black to White
Whites Blacks Whites Blacks
9 – 13 9 3 12684 2594 4.890 1.6
13 – 16 171 226 12477 2471 5.049 6.7
17 – 19 651 922 8942 1722 5.193 7.4
20 – 24 1064 1427 14628 2764 5.293 7.1
25 – 34 1157 1204 30532 5235 5.832 6.1
35 – 44 821 547 37136 5413 6.861 4.6
45 – 54 428 244 30537 3952 7.727 4.4
55 – 64 169 55 20340 2369 8.586 2.8
65 – 74 68 31 16217 1684 9.630 4.4
total or average 4532 4659 183493 28204 6.506 6.7

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

Whites, Blacks and Murder – 2001
Murder in the United States by race and age with additional details
Sources: Crime in the United States, 2001, Table 2.6, and National Population Projections, Detailed Files, 2001-2010
Age Group Murders committed by US population (thousands) Population
Ratio
White / Black
Per Capita Rate of Murder Perpetration, Ratio of Black to White
Whites Blacks Whites Blacks
9 – 12 7 6 12950 2664 4.861 4.2
13 – 16 196 234 12436 2486 5.002 6.0
17 – 19 732 894 9608 1859 5.168 6.3
20 – 24 1172 1521 15113 2860 5.284 6.9
25 – 34 1266 1210 29539 5220 5.659 5.4
35 – 44 843 609 36611 5752 6.365 4.6
45 – 54 447 251 32474 4361 7.446 4.2
55 – 64 176 58 21050 2473 8.512 2.8
65 – 74 62 30 15804 1715 9.215 4.5
total or average 4901 4813 185585 29390 6.315 6.2
Whites, Blacks and Murder – 2002
Murder in the United States by race and age with additional details
Sources: Crime in the United States, 2002, Table 2.6, and National Population Projections, Detailed Files, 2001-2010
Age Group Murders committed by US population (thousands) Population
Ratio
White / Black
Per Capita Rate of Murder Perpetration, Ratio of Black to White
Whites Blacks Whites Blacks
9 – 12 7 18 13007 2659 4.892 12.6
13 – 16 227 198 12534 2562 4.892 4.3
17 – 19 648 802 9646 1867 5.167 6.4
20 – 24 1265 1547 15438 2918 5.291 6.5
25 – 34 1342 1325 29347 5238 5.603 5.5
35 – 44 827 627 36104 5740 6.290 4.8
45 – 54 493 275 32859 4539 7.239 4.0
55 – 64 176 63 22419 2603 8.613 3.1
65 – 74 70 21 15736 1751 8.987 2.7
total or average 5055 4876 187090 29877 6.262 6.0

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

Whites, Blacks and Murder – 2003
Murder in the United States by race and age with additional details
Sources: Crime in the United States, 2003, Table 2.5, and National Population Projections, Detailed Files, 2001-2010
Age Group Murders committed by US population (thousands) Population
Ratio
White / Black
Per Capita Rate of Murder Perpetration, Ratio of Black to White
Whites Blacks Whites Blacks
9 – 12 7 4 12890 2622 4.916 2.8
13 – 16 185 229 12761 2642 4.830 6.0
17 – 19 625 889 9685 1887 5.132 7.3
20 – 24 1147 1542 15726 2970 5.295 7.1
25 – 34 1229 1365 29252 5260 5.561 6.2
35 – 44 879 575 35508 5727 6.200 4.1
45 – 54 440 276 33486 4707 7.114 4.5
55 – 64 185 62 23439 2726 8.598 2.9
65 – 74 81 25 15728 1758 8.947 2.8
total or average 4778 4967 188475 30299 6.221 6.5

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.

age average std dev
15 5.944 0.934
18 7.033 0.704
22 7.267 0.534
30 5.922 0.380
40 4.744 0.430
50 4.456 0.347
60 3.833 1.002
70 4.422 1.149

Part 3

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

Murder Victim – Offender Relationship by Race
Source: Crime in the United States, 1995, Table 2.8
Year 1995 Race of offender
“White” Black Other Unknown
White victims 4124 699 60 71
Black victims 281 4422 15 46
Victims of other race 50 44 153 6
Victims of unknown race 21 10 30
In 1995, there were 10032 US murders having a single perpetrator and a single victim. Of these murders, Blacks committed 5175 (51.6%) and Whites committed 4476 (44.6%). The Black per capita murder rate was 7.6 times higher than the White per capita murder rate.There were at least 1149 interracial murders (11.5% of total murders), of which 743 were committed by Blacks (64.7% of interracial murders) and 331 were committed by Whites (28.8%). The Black per capita interracial murder rate was 14.8 times higher than that for Whites.

There were 699 murders in which Blacks killed Whites (60.8% of interracial murders) and 281 murders in which Whites killed Blacks (24.5%). The average Black was 16.4 times more likely to kill a White than the reverse (in a one-on-one situation).

The (White+Hispanic)/Black population ratio for 1995 was 6.59.

Murder Victim – Offender Relationship by Race
Source: Crime in the United States, 1996, Table 2.8
Year 1996 Race of offender
“White” Black Other Unknown
White victims 3460 558 66 43
Black victims 247 3562 15 30
Victims of other race 55 37 113 3
Victims of unknown race 9 17 2 22
In 1996, there were 8239 US murders having a single perpetrator and a single victim. Of these murders, Blacks committed 4174 (50.7%) and Whites committed 3771 (45.8%). The Black per capita murder rate was 7.3 times higher than the White per capita murder rate.There were at least 978 interracial murders (11.9% of total murders), of which 595 were committed by Blacks (60.8% of interracial murders) and 302 were committed by Whites (30.9%). The Black per capita interracial murder rate was 12.9 times higher than that for Whites.

There were 558 murders in which Blacks killed Whites (57.1% of interracial murders) and 247 murders in which Whites killed Blacks (25.3%). The average Black was 14.8 times more likely to kill a White than the reverse (in a one-on-one situation).

The (White+Hispanic)/Black population ratio for 1996 was 6.55.

Murder Victim – Offender Relationship by Race
Source: Crime in the United States, 1997, Table 2.8
Year 1997 Race of offender
“White” Black Other Unknown
White victims 3184 520 45 38
Black victims 209 3388 11 38
Victims of other race 48 35 141 2
Victims of unknown race 13 15 1 33
In 1997, there were 7721 US murders having a single perpetrator and a single victim. Of these murders, Blacks committed 3958 (51.3%) and Whites committed 3454 (44.7%). The Black per capita murder rate was 7.5 times higher than the White per capita murder rate.There were at least 868 interracial murders (11.2% of total murders), of which 555 were committed by Blacks (63.9% of interracial murders) and 257 were committed by Whites (29.6%). The Black per capita interracial murder rate was 14.1 times higher than that for Whites.

There were 520 murders in which Blacks killed Whites (59.9% of interracial murders) and 209 murders in which Whites killed Blacks (24.1%). The average Black was 16.2 times more likely to kill a White than the reverse (in a one-on-one situation).

The (White+Hispanic)/Black population ratio for 1997 was 6.51.

Murder Victim – Offender Relationship by Race
Source: Crime in the United States, 1998, Table 2.8
Year 1998 Race of offender
“White” Black Other Unknown
White victims 3205 449 39 35
Black victims 205 3067 6 31
Victims of other race 43 20 94 1
Victims of unknown race 22 29 30
In 1998, there were 7276 US murders having a single perpetrator and a single victim. Of these murders, Blacks committed 3565 (49.0%) and Whites committed 3475 (47.8%). The Black per capita murder rate was 6.7 times higher than the White per capita murder rate.There were at least 762 interracial murders (10.5% of total murders), of which 469 were committed by Blacks (61.5% of interracial murders) and 248 were committed by Whites (32.5%). The Black per capita interracial murder rate was 12.3 times higher than that for Whites.

There were 449 murders in which Blacks killed Whites (58.9% of interracial murders) and 205 murders in which Whites killed Blacks (26.9%). The average Black was 14.2 times more likely to kill a White than the reverse (in a one-on-one situation).

The (White+Hispanic)/Black population ratio for 1998 was 6.48.

Murder Victim – Offender Relationship by Race
Source: Crime in the United States, 1999, Table 2.8
Year 1999 Race of offender
“White” Black Other Unknown
White victims 2779 452 51 54
Black victims 154 2674 10 31
Victims of other race 34 17 127 3
Victims of unknown race 17 12 1 18
In 1999, there were 6434 US murders having a single perpetrator and a single victim. Of these murders, Blacks committed 3155 (49.0%) and Whites committed 2984 (46.4%). The Black per capita murder rate was 6.8 times higher than the White per capita murder rate.There were at least 718 interracial murders (11.2% of total murders), of which 469 were committed by Blacks (65.3% of interracial murders) and 188 were committed by Whites (26.2%). The Black per capita interracial murder rate was 16.1 times higher than that for Whites.

There were 452 murders in which Blacks killed Whites (63.0% of interracial murders) and 154 murders in which Whites killed Blacks (21.4%). The average Black was 18.9 times more likely to kill a White than the reverse (in a one-on-one situation).

The (White+Hispanic)/Black population ratio for 1999 was 6.44.

Murder Victim – Offender Relationship by Race
Source: Crime in the United States, 2000, Table 2.8
Year 2000 Race of offender
“White” Black Other Unknown
White victims 2860 417 40 35
Black victims 178 2723 5 21
Victims of other race 43 22 103 1
Victims of unknown race 30 19 1 16
In 2000, there were 6514 US murders having a single perpetrator and a single victim. Of these murders, Blacks committed 3181 (48.8%) and Whites committed 3111 (47.8%). The Black per capita murder rate was 6.5 times higher than the White per capita murder rate.There were at least 705 interracial murders (10.8% of total murders), of which 439 were committed by Blacks (62.3% of interracial murders) and 221 were committed by Whites (31.3%). The Black per capita interracial murder rate was 12.7 times higher than that for Whites.

There were 417 murders in which Blacks killed Whites (59.1% of interracial murders) and 178 murders in which Whites killed Blacks (25.2%). The average Black was 15.0 times more likely to kill a White than the reverse (in a one-on-one situation).

The (White+Hispanic)/Black population ratio for 2000 was 6.40.

Murder Victim – Offender Relationship by Race
Source: Crime in the United States, 2001, Table 2.8
Year 2001 Race of offender
“White” Black Other Unknown
White victims 3059 475 48 62
Black victims 180 2802 10 95
Victims of other race 52 24 98 5
Victims of unknown race 31 20 2 24
In 2001, there were 6987 US murders having a single perpetrator and a single victim. Of these murders, Blacks committed 3321 (47.5%) and Whites committed 3322 (47.5%). The Black per capita murder rate was 6.3 times higher than the White per capita murder rate.There were at least 789 interracial murders (11.3% of total murders), of which 499 were committed by Blacks (63.2% of interracial murders) and 232 were committed by Whites (29.4%). The Black per capita interracial murder rate was 13.6 times higher than that for Whites.

There were 475 murders in which Blacks killed Whites (60.2% of interracial murders) and 180 murders in which Whites killed Blacks (22.8%). The average Black was 16.7 times more likely to kill a White than the reverse (in a one-on-one situation).

The (White+Hispanic)/Black population ratio for 2001 was 6.32.

Murder Victim – Offender Relationship by Race
Source: Crime in the United States, 2002, Table 2.8
Year 2002 Race of offender
“White” Black Other Unknown
White victims 3000 483 58 41
Black victims 227 2852 11 47
Victims of other race 51 28 109 4
Victims of unknown race 31 23 2 38
In 2002, there were 7005 US murders having a single perpetrator and a single victim. Of these murders, Blacks committed 3386 (48.3%) and Whites committed 3309 (47.2%). The Black per capita murder rate was 6.4 times higher than the White per capita murder rate.There were at least 858 interracial murders (12.2% of total murders), of which 511 were committed by Blacks (59.6% of interracial murders) and 278 were committed by Whites (32.4%). The Black per capita interracial murder rate was 11.5 times higher than that for Whites.

There were 483 murders in which Blacks killed Whites (56.3% of interracial murders) and 227 murders in which Whites killed Blacks (26.5%). The average Black was 13.3 times more likely to kill a White than the reverse (in a one-on-one situation).

The (White+Hispanic)/Black population ratio for 2002 was 6.26.

Murder Victim – Offender Relationship by Race
Source: Crime in the United States, 2003, Table 2.7
Year 2003 Race of offender
“White” Black Other Unknown
White victims 3017 501 44 41
Black victims 226 2864 8 49
Victims of other race 47 26 122 4
Victims of unknown race 33 21 2 19
In 2003, there were 7024 US murders having a single perpetrator and a single victim. Of these murders, Blacks committed 3415 (48.6%) and Whites committed 3323 (47.3%). The Black per capita murder rate was 6.4 times higher than the White per capita murder rate.There were at least 852 interracial murders (12.1% of total murders), of which 527 were committed by Blacks (61.9% of interracial murders) and 273 were committed by Whites (32.0%). The Black per capita interracial murder rate was 12.0 times higher than that for Whites.

There were 501 murders in which Blacks killed Whites (58.8% of interracial murders) and 226 murders in which Whites killed Blacks (26.5%). The average Black was 13.8 times more likely to kill a White than the reverse (in a one-on-one situation).

The (White+Hispanic)/Black population ratio for 2003 was 6.22.

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 spic-loading the White offender totals, I usually assume that one-quarter of the crimes alleged to have “White” perpetrators were committed by some sort of brownish non-White.

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 p 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 brownies 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!

In early 1993, police in Los Angeles and San Francisco raided offices of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith (ADL) and found illegally obtained documents of classified police intelligence. In April 1993, ABC News reported the raid to viewers across the United States. A few days later, articles concerning the ADL and the raid appeared in the Los Angeles Times and in the New York Daily News. The same media that would ordinarily go to great lengths to cover up something like this were beginning to spread the word, albeit somewhat slowly. The most likely reason that we gentile Americans ever heard about the matter was that the ADL had been spying on some of the goyish equalitarians in the Establishment, and those equalitarians were suitably offended that they should have been so targeted. Anyway, about one week after the first hints that the ADL espionage campaign against American citizens might hit the presses big time, the deadly fire at Waco diverted the attention of the nation, and everyone promptly forgot about the ADL. To the best of my knowledge, the ADL was never brought to trial for even one of the thousands of felony charges that probably could have been filed against them.
Sources for government crime statistics and demographic information include:

The FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1995-1999
Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1996
County-Level Breakdown in US Crime Rates
Population Estimates, by Race, for US Counties

Correctional Populations in the United States, 1995

One of the commonest retorts that I hear from equalitarians is that the statistics presented on this page in tabular and graphical form are “false statistics.” Since I’ve named my sources of information, and since those sources are readily available to anyone wishing to check my work, that kind of response would have to be an especially imbecilic example of the famous equalitarian knee jerking.

Another invalid argument frequently raised by equalitarians is that “you can make statistics prove anything.” No, you can’t. If a analyst cites his data sources and shows his work based on them, he can’t cheat (or even make an honest mistake) without it being obvious. An honest critic could repeat the analyst’s work and pinpoint the analyst’s errors in a specific way. Criticisms of statistical methods based on bogus generalities, like the one quoted, are usually themselves duplicitous attempts to cover up what the statistics prove.

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,

How are crimes estimated for publication in Crime in the United States?

Due to the fact that not all law enforcement agencies provide complete data for a given year, it is sometimes necessary for the UCR Program to generate crime estimates at the local, state, and national levels. Using the known crime experiences of similar areas within a state, the estimates are computed by assigning the same proportional crime volumes to non-reporting agencies. The size of an agency, type of jurisdiction, e.g., police department versus sheriff’s office, and geographic location are considered in the estimation process. A similar procedure is used for national arrest estimates. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucrquest.htm

Two major changes to the UCR county-level files are being implemented with the 1994 release data. A new imputation algorithm to adjust for incomplete reporting by individual law enforcement jurisdictions has been adopted. Also, a new Coverage Indicator has been created to provide users with a diagnostic measure of aggregated data quality in a particular county. These developments are described in greater detail below. The changes have been instituted in response to comments from a number of users and after almost a year of discussions by UCR file users, the Uniform Crime Reports Unit of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.

http://www.lib.virginia.edu/socsci/crime/

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.

Demographic and Crime Rate Comparisons for
Gwinnett and Fulton Counties, Georgia
Source: Census Bureau and FBI data for 1990
Population Whites Blacks Murders Rapes Robberies Aggravated
Assaults
Gwinnett County 352,910 89.4% 5.2% 13 94 372 637
Fulton County 648,779 46.8% 50.1% 227 794 6542 9178
Population Ratio or
Ratio of per capita rate
(Fulton / Gwinnett)
1.84 0.52 9.6 9.5 4.6 9.6 7.8

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.

Equalitarians insist that the phrase “the average Black” is meaningless because there is no specific person who can be called “Mr. Average Black.” On the other hand, if we were discussing physics instead of crime, and I described the behavior of “the average atom,” the equalitarians would have no trouble with my language. If I were to tell them that “the average house” in my neighborhood has 2.125 stories, again the equalitarians would know exactly what I meant. If I were to tell an equalitarian how many calls “the average fire department” receives in “an average week,” then once again no equalitarian would express outrage or pretend confusion. Calm comprehension would be the rule among them. But when I describe the behavior of the average Black in that same way, suddenly the equalitarians have problems. Those problems are political problems. They have nothing to do with conveying concepts or with understanding them as they were conveyed.

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.

Number of Known Offenders by Race, 1995

Source: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hatecm.htm

Suspected Offender’s Race Number of Known Offenders
Total 8,433
White 4,991
Black 2,253
American Indian
Alaskan Native
45
Asian
Pacific Islander
211
Multi-Racial Group 318
Unknown 615
[FBI statement] Law enforcement agencies reported the number of known offenders for 62 percent of hate crimes coming to their attention in 1995. Among the 8,433 known offenders reported to be associated with hate crime incidents, 59 percent were white, and 27 percent were black. The remaining offenders were of other or multi-racial groups.

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 (1/20th) 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.

The Zeroth Equalitarian Argument: “Race Does Not Exist” Equalitarians like to use a slippery slope argument involving the smooth graduation of genetic change among human population groups. That is, between any two tribes separated by a significant genetic distance, there will usually be a third tribe intermediate between them. Equalitarians have for that reason gone so far as to deny the existence of race (in between calls for Affirmative Action, of course). But that’s like saying that color does not exist because it is hard to draw a line in the spectrum where the light stops being more blue than green and starts being more green than blue. You could extend the argument without difficulty until every color, from red to blue, were all “one kind of light,” as an equalitarian might say.

Let’s make a quantum mechanical comparison. A photon having an energy equal to, or greater than, the work function of a bound electron will kick that electron free of the atom. A photon having less energy than the work function will not do so. (And it is not possible for two photons, each with insufficient energy, to “strike at the same time” or otherwise combine to get the job done.) The proportion of times that an ionization event will depend on difference of 20 Angstroms in the wavelength of an incident photon will be FEW. Likewise, the proportion of times that the successful handling of an environmental challenge will depend on a genetic distance of 20 will also be FEW. However, the proportion of times that an ionization event will depend on a difference of 2000 Angstroms in the wavelength of an incident photon will be MANY. Likewise, the proportion of times that the successful handling of an environmental challenge will depend on a genetic distance of 2000 will also be MANY.

Or consider the fact that you can put a piano into the back of a pickup truck, but the same piano will not fit into a compact car – and the fact that it is possible to build any number of intermediate kinds of vehicle does not remove the cargo limitations of the compact car. (Or the cargo limitations of most of the intermediates!)

So whereas it makes a small difference to the character of Ireland that the original Celtic stock is today mixed with Germanic or Scandinavian blood, it will make a HUGE difference tomorrow, if the Irish start breeding with Blacks. And, if history is any guide, this intermixture WILL happen unless Ireland gets rid of the Blacks. The same is true, naturally, for all other European countries with a non-White immigration problem.

(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.

This looks like an excellent place to insert a paragraph about a “Politically Correct” analysis of urban crime included in a book called Urban Change in the United States and Western Europe: Comparative Analysis and Policy, edited by Summers, Cheshire and Senn, and published in 1999. As an inquiry into the causes of urban crime, the book deliberately and methodically fails to notice the obvious racial factor. For example, in a subsection of chapter 11 headed “CRIME” (page 362), we find:

Many factors are associated with rising crime rates. Nonetheless, as shown in table 11.14, the changes in crime rates are loosely correlated with 1982 levels of standardized fiscal health.

Notice that they are speaking about changes in crime rates, rather than the crime rates themselves. This attention given to the time derivative of urban crime rates might have merit after the causes of urban crime are identified, in order to determine the influence of lesser, secondary factors. But focusing closely on urban crime rates is what these equalitarian writers dare not do. They dare not say that the crime rates, themselves, are STRONGLY correlated with the racial composition of urban areas, because that would amount to confessing that the doctrine of racial equality is a pack of lies. And so they pass over the question, and they obscure their passage by dwelling tediously on minor fluctuations of the crime rate with time and by speculating that maybe the local economy has something to do with those fluctuations. (That’s like a doctor poking around with the bowel movements of a decapitated patient in order to find out what the cause of death was.)

In his Foreward to Urban Change, Urban Institute President William Gorham begins: “Cities in the United States developed in response to profoundly different cultural, economic, and political factors.” Blah blah blah. I tell you, folks, the people who wrote this book KNOW about the racial factor. They’re not stupid; they’re intentionally concealing the causes of the problem that they pretend to study.

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.

Related Articles:

Photobucket
Oliver Stone apologized for Telling the Truth
By Gilad Atzmon
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Source: gilad.squarespace.com

There you go… Oliver Stone apologized for suggesting that the Jewish lobby controls Washington’s foreign policy and that Hitler’s actions should be put into context.

In fact, Stone’s apology confirms Stone’s argument. We are subject to constant assault by Jewish and Israeli gatekeepers who insist on controlling the political and historical discourse and defy any possible criticism of Jewish national affairs.

“In trying to make a broader historical point about the range of atrocities the Germans committed against many people, I made a clumsy association about the Holocaust, for which I am sorry and I regret,” Stone said in a statement released late Monday, the day after his remarks were published in a British newspaper.

JTA reported today that Elan Steinberg, vice president of the American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors and their Descendants, was among the Jewish organizations and Israeli officials to condemn the remarks.

Steinberg in a statement said Stone’s apology “was necessary and we accept it. But whether he acted out of sincerity or as a desperate response to the moral outcry at his comments is an open question,” he added. “He must be judged by his future words and deeds.”

Steinberg demands “sincerity” and future subservience. I would actually expect him to join Stone and be slightly more enthusiastic about historical research and contextual thinking.

Israel’s propaganda minister’, Yuli Edelstein, was also among those who had condemned Stone’s remarks early Monday. “They are nauseating, anti-Semitic and racist. Not only is he showing ignorance, he is demonizing Jews for no reason and returning to the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion.’ [Never mind the fact that Stone’s father is Jewish, or that what he said (prior to his recantation) was factually sound, irrespective of who it offended.]

Interesting indeed. Stone doesn’t refer to race. There is nothing anti-Semitic in his remark whatsoever unless telling the truth is a form of anti-Semitism. Moreover, Stone didn’t demonize Jews for being Jews, he described some actions committed by Jewish institutional lobbies, actions that are now academically documented and studied. He did it for a good reason. Stone is probably patriotic or pragmatic enough to gather that peace is important.

“When a man of Stone’s stature speaks in this way”, said Edelstein, “it can bring waves of anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiment, and may even damage Jewish communities and individuals.” Edelstein is almost correct. Stone was brave enough to tell the truth about Jewish power, though he probably wasn’t courageous enough to stand for it, which is understandable. However, Edelstein and other Jewish leaders had better realise that Stone is far from being mad, anti-Semitic or racist. Stone told the truth as we all see it.

Instead of silencing criticism, Edelstein, Steinberg and others had better face the mirror because the time is running out for Israel and its supporters.

Update: Haim Saban to CBS: Cancel Oliver Stone’s Showtime Series

http://www.thewrap.com/media/column-post/exclusive-haim-saban-stone-should-join-mel-gibson-retirement-19614

The New Yorker reported last month that at a conference last fall, Saban described his pro-Israeli formula, outlining “three ways to be influential in American politics: make donations to political parties, establish think tanks, and control media outlets.”

Read Full Post »

Photobucket
An ‘Unknown Holocaust’ and the Hijacking of History
by Mark Weber
July 25, 2009
Source: Archives, Institute for Historical Review

We hear a lot about terrible crimes committed by Germans during World War II, but we hear very little about crimes committed against Germans. Germany’s defeat in May 1945, and the end of World War II in Europe, did not bring an end to death and suffering for the vanquished German people. Instead the victorious Allies ushered in a horrible new era of destruction, looting, starvation, rape, “ethnic cleansing,” and mass killing — one that Time magazine called “history’s most terrifying peace.” / 1

Even though this “unknown holocaust” is ignored in our motion pictures and classrooms, and by our political leaders, the facts are well established. Historians are in basic agreement about the scale of the human catastrophe, which has been laid out in a number of detailed books. For example, American historian and jurist Alfred de Zayas, along with other scholars, has established that in the years 1945 to 1950, more than 14 million Germans were expelled or forced to flee from large regions of eastern and central Europe, of whom more than two million were killed or otherwise lost their lives. / 2

One recent and particularly useful overview is a 615-page book, published in 2007, entitled After the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation. / 3 In it, British historian Giles MacDonogh details how the ruined and prostrate German Reich (including Austria) was systematically raped and robbed, and how many Germans who survived the war were either killed in cold blood or deliberately left to die of disease, cold, malnutrition or starvation. He explains how some three million Germans died unnecessarily after the official end of hostilities — about two million civilians, mostly women, children and elderly, and about one million prisoners of war.

Some people take the view that, given the wartime misdeeds of the Nazis, some degree of vengeful violence against the defeated Germans was inevitable and perhaps justified. A common response to reports of Allied atrocities is to say that the Germans “deserved what they got.” But however valid that argument might be, the appalling cruelties inflicted on the totally prostrate German people went far beyond any understandable retribution.

Although I’m focusing here on the treatment of Germans, it’s worth keeping in mind that they were not the only victims of postwar Allied brutality. Across central and eastern Europe, the heavy hand of Soviet rule continued to take lives of Poles, Hungarians, Ukrainians, and people of other nationalities.

As Soviet troops advanced into central and eastern Europe during the war’s final months, they imposed a reign of terror, pillage and killing without compare in modern history. The horrors were summarized by George F. Kennan, the acclaimed historian who also served as US ambassador to the Soviet Union. He wrote: / 4

“The disaster that befell this area with the entry of the Soviet forces has no parallel in modern European experience. There were considerable sections of it where, to judge by all existing evidence, scarcely a man, woman or child of the indigenous population was left alive after the initial passage of Soviet forces; and one cannot believe that they all succeeded in fleeing to the West … The Russians … swept the native population clean in a manner that had no parallel since the days of the Asiatic hordes.”

During the last months of the war, the ancient German city of Königsberg in East Prussia held out as a strongly defended urban fortress. After repeated attack and siege by the Red Army, it finally surrendered in early April 1945. Soviet troops then ravished the civilian population. The people were beaten, robbed, killed and, if female, raped. The rape victims included nuns. Even hospital patients were robbed of their possessions. Bunkers and shelters, packed with terrified people huddling inside, were torched with flame-throwers. About 40,000 of the city’s population were killed, or took their own lives to escape the horrors, and the remaining 73,000 Germans were brutally deported. / 5

In a report that appeared in August 1945 in the Washington DC Times-Herald, / 6 an American journalist wrote of what he described as “the state of terror in which women in Russian-occupied eastern Germany were living. All these women, Germans, Polish, Jewish and even Russian girls `freed’ from Nazi slave camps, were consumed by one desperate desire — to escape from the Red zone “

“In the district around our internment camp … Red soldiers during the first weeks of their occupation raped every women and girl between the ages of 12 and 60 [some reports say 8 and 80]. That sounds exaggerated, but it is the simple truth. The only exceptions were girls who managed to remain in hiding in the woods or who had the presence of mind to feign illness – typhoid, dyptheria or some other infectious disease … Husbands and fathers who attempted to protect their women folk were shot, and girls offering extreme resistance were murdered.”

In accord with policy set by the “Big Three” Allied leaders of the US, Britain and the Soviet Union — Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin — millions of Germans were expunged from their ancient homelands in central and eastern Europe.

In October 1945, a New York Daily News report from occupied Berlin told readers: / 7

“In the windswept courtyard of the Stettiner Bahnof [rail station], a cohort of German refugees, part of 12 million to 19 million dispossessed in East Prussia and Silesia, sat in groups under a driving rain and told the story of their miserable pilgrimage, during which more than 25 percent died by the roadside, and the remainder were so starved they scarcely had strength to walk …

“A nurse from Stettin, a young, good-looking blond, told how her father had been stabbed to death by Russian soldiers who, after raping her mother and sister, tried to break into her own room. She escaped and hid in a haystack with four other women for four days …

“On the train to Berlin she was pillaged once by Russian troops and twice by Poles. Women who resisted were shot dead, she said, and on one occasion she saw a guard take an infant by the legs and crush its skull against a post because the child cried while the guard was raping its mother.

“An old peasant from Silesia said … victims were robbed of everything they had, even their shoes. Infants were robbed of their swaddling clothes so that they froze to death. All the healthy girls and women, even those 65 years of age, were raped in the train and then robbed, the peasant said.”

In November 1945 an item in the Chicago Tribune told readers: / 8

“Nine hundred and nine men, women and children dragged themselves and their luggage from a Russian railway train at Lehrter station [in Berlin] today, after eleven days traveling in boxcars from Poland. Red Army soldiers lifted 91 corpses from the train, while relatives shrieked and sobbed as their bodies were piled in American lend-lease trucks and driven off for interment in a pit near a concentration camp.

“The refugee train was like a macabre Noah’s ark. Every car was packed with Germans … the families carry all their earthly belongings in sacks, bags and tin trunks … Nursing infants suffer the most, as their mothers are unable to feed them, and frequently go insane as they watch offspring slowly die before their eyes. Today four screaming, violently insane mothers were bound with rope to prevent them from clawing other passengers.”

Although most of the millions of German girls and women who were ravished by Allied soldiers were raped by Red Army troops, Soviet soldiers were not the only perpetrators. During the French occupation of Stuttgart, a large city in southwest Germany, police records show that 1,198 women and eight men were raped, mostly by French troops from Morocco in north Africa, although the prelate of the Lutheran Evangelical church estimated the number at 5,000. / 9

During World War II, the United States, Britain and Germany generally complied with the international regulations on the treatment of prisoners of war, as required by the Geneva accord of 1929. But at the end of the fighting in Europe, the US and British authorities scrapped the Geneva convention. In violation of solemn international obligations and Red Cross rules, the American and British authorities stripped millions of captured German soldiers of their status, and their rights, as prisoners of war by reclassifying them as so-called “Disarmed Enemy Forces” or “Surrendered Enemy Personnel.” / 10

Accordingly, British and American authorities denied access by International Red Cross representatives to camps holding German prisoners of war. Moreover, any attempt by German civilians to feed the prisoners was punishable by death. / 11 Many thousands of German POWs died in American custody, most infamously in the so-called “Rhine meadow camps,” where prisoners were held under appalling conditions, with no shelter and very little food. / 12

In April 1946, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) protested that the United States, Britain and France, nearly a year after the end of fighting, were violating International Red Cross agreements they had solemnly pledged to uphold. The Red Cross pointed out, for example, that the American transfer of German prisoners of war to French and British authorities for forced labor was contrary to International Red Cross statutes. / 13

Another report by the International Committee of the Red Cross in August 1946 stated that the US government, through its military branch in the US zone of occupation in Germany, was exacting forced labor from 284,000 captives, of whom 140,000 were in the US occupation zone, 100,000 in France, 30,000 in Italy, and 14,000 in Belgium. Holdings of German prisoners or slave laborers by other countries, the Red Cross reported, included 80,000 in Yugoslavia, and 45,000 in Czechoslovakia. / 14

Both during and after the war, the Allies tortured German prisoners. In one British center in England, called “the London Cage,” German prisoners were subjected to systematic ill-treatment, including starvation and beatings. The brutality continued for several years after the end of the war. Treatment of German prisoners by the British was even more harsh in the British occupation zone of Germany. / 15 At the US internment center at Schwäbisch Hall in southwest Germany, prisoners awaiting trial by American military courts were subjected to severe and systematic torture, including long stretches in solitary confinement, extremes of heat and cold, deprivation of sleep and food, and severe beatings, including kicks to the groin. / 16

Most of the German prisoners of war who died in Allied captivity were held by the Soviets, and a much higher portion of German POWs died in Soviet custody than perished in British and American captivity. (For example, of the 90,000 Germans who surrendered at Stalingrad, only 5,000 ever returned to their homeland.) More than five years after the end of the war, hundreds of thousands of German prisoners were still being held in the Soviet Union. Other German prisoners perished after the end of the war in Yugoslavia, Poland and other countries. In Yugoslavia alone, authorities of the Communist regime killed as many as 80,000 Germans. German prisoners toiled as slave labor in other Allied countries, often for years.

At the Yalta conference in early 1945, the “Big Three” Allied leaders agreed that the Soviets could take Germans as forced laborers, or “slave labor.” It is estimated that 874,000 German civilians were abducted to the Soviet Union. These were in addition to the millions of prisoners of war who were held by the Soviets as forced laborers. Of these so-called reparations deportees, nearly half — 45 percent — perished. / 17

For two years after the end of the fighting, Germans were victims of a cruel and vindictive occupation policy, one that meant slow starvation of the defeated population. To sustain life, a normal adult needs a minimum of about 2,000 calories per day. But in March and February 1946, the daily intake per person in the British and American occupation zones of Germany was between one thousand and fifteen hundred calories. / 18

In the winter of 1945-46, the Allies forbid anyone outside the country to send food parcels to the starving Germans. The Allied authorities also rejected requests by the International Red Cross to bring in provisions to alleviate the suffering. / 19

Very few persons in Britain or the United States spoke out against the Allied policy. Victor Gollancz, an English-Jewish writer and publisher, toured the British occupation zone of northern Germany for six weeks in late 1946. He publicized the death and malnutrition he found there, which he said was a consequence of Allied policy. He wrote: “The plain fact is … we are starving the Germans. And we are starving them, not deliberately in the sense that we definitely want them to die, but willfully, in the sense that we prefer their death to our own inconvenience.” / 20

Another person who protested was Bertrand Russell, the noted philosopher and Nobel Prize recipient. In a letter published in a London newspaper in October 1945, he wrote: “In eastern Europe now mass deportations are being carried out by our allies on an unprecedented scale, and an apparently deliberate attempt is being made to exterminate many millions of Germans, not by gas, but by depriving them of their homes and of food, leaving them to die by slow and agonizing starvation. This is not done as an act of war, but as a part of a deliberate policy of ‘peace‘.” / 21

As the war was ending in what is now the Czech Republic, hysterical mobs brutally assaulted ethnic Germans, members of a minority group whose ancestors had lived there for centuries. In Prague, German soldiers were rounded up, disarmed, tied to stakes, doused with gasoline, and set on fire as living torches. / 22 In some cities and towns in what is now the Czech Republic, every German over the age of six was forced to wear on his clothing, sewn on his left breast, a large white circle six inches in diameter with the black letter N, which is the first letter of the Czech word for German. Germans were also banned from all parks, places of public entertainment, and public transportation, and not allowed to leave their homes after eight in the evening. Later all these people were expelled, along with the entire ethnic German population of what is now the Czech Republic. / 23 In the territory of what is now the Czech Republic, a quarter of a million ethnic Germans were killed.

In Poland, the so-called “Office of State Security,” an agency of the country’s new Soviet-controlled government, imposed its own brutal form of “de-Nazification.” Its agents raided German homes, rounding up some 200,000 men, women, children and infants — 99 percent of them non-combatant, innocent civilians. They were incarcerated in cellars, pris­ons, and 1,255 concentration camps where typhus was rampant and torture was commonplace. Between 60,000 and 80,000 Germans perished at the hands of the “Office of State Security.” / 24

We are ceaselessly reminded of the Third Reich’s wartime concentration camps. But few Americans are aware that such infamous camps as Dachau, Buchenwald, Sachsenhausen and Auschwitz were kept in operation after the end of the war, only now packed with German captives, many of whom perished miserably.

For many years we’ve heard a lot about so-called Nazi art theft. But however large the scale of confiscation of art by Germans in World War II, it was dwarfed by the massive theft of art works and other objects of cultural value by the Allies. The Soviets alone looted some two and half million art objects, including 800,000 paintings. In addition, many paintings, statues, and other priceless art works were destroyed by the Allies. / 25

In the war’s aftermath, the victors put many German military and political leaders to death or sentenced them to lengthy prison terms after much-publicized trials in which the Allies were both prosecutor and judge. The best-known of these trials was before the so-called “International Military Tribunal” at Nuremberg, where officials of the four Allied powers were both the prosecutors and the judges.

Justice — as opposed to vengeance — is a standard that is applied impartially. But in the aftermath of World War II, the victorious powers imposed standards of “justice” that applied only to the vanquished. The governments of the United States, the Soviet Union, and other member states of the so-called “United Nations,” held Germans to a standard that they categorically refused to respect themselves.

Robert Jackson, the chief US prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunal of 1945-46, privately acknowledged in a letter to President Truman, that the Allies “have done or are doing some of the very things we are prosecuting the Germans for. The French are so violating the Geneva Convention in the treatment of [German] prisoners of war that our command is taking back prisoners sent to them [for forced labor in France]. We are prosecuting plunder and our Allies are practicing it. We say aggressive war is a crime and one of our allies asserts sovereignty over the Baltic States based on no title except conquest.” / 26

Germans were executed or imprisoned for policies that the Allies themselves were carrying out, sometimes on a far greater scale. German military and political leaders were put to death on the basis of a hypocritical double standard, which means that these executions were essentially acts of judicial murder dressed up with the trappings and forms of legality. If the standards of the Nuremberg Tribunal had been applied impartially, many American, Soviet and other Allied military and political leaders would have been hanged.

An awareness of how the defeated Germans were treated by the victors helps in understanding why Germans continued to fight during the final months of the war with a determination, tenacity and willingness to sacrifice that has few parallels in history, even as their cities were being smashed into ruins under relentless bombing, and even as defeat against numerically superior enemy forces seemed inevitable.

Two years after the end of the war, American and British policy toward the defeated Germans changed. The US and British governments began to treat the Germans as potential allies, rather than as vanquished subjects, and to appeal for their support. This shift in policy was not prompted by an awakening of humanitarian spirit. Instead, it was motivated by American and British fear of Soviet Russian expansion, and by the realization that the economic recovery of Europe as a whole required a prosperous and productive Germany.

Oswald Spenger, the great German historian and philosopher, once observed that how a people learns history is its form of political education. In every society, including our own, how people learn and come to understand history is determined by those who control political and cultural life, including the educational system and the mass media. How people understand the past — and how they view the world and themselves as members of society — is set by the agenda of those who hold power.

That’s why, in our society, death and suffering during and after World War II of non-Jews — Poles, Russians and others, and especially Germans — is all but ignored, and why, instead, more than six decades after the end of the war, Jewish death and suffering — above all, what is known as “the Holocaust” — is given such prominent attention, year after year, in our classrooms and motion pictures, and by our political leaders.

What I’m calling here an “unknown holocaust” of non-Jews is essentially ignored not because the facts are disputed or unknown [though it is certainly peculiar that those who are unfamiliar with these facts often choose to dispute them], but rather because this reality does not fit well with the Judeo-centric view of history that is all but obligatory in our society, a view of the past that reflects the Jewish-Zionist hold on our cultural and educational life.

This means that it is not enough simply to “establish the facts.” It is important to understand, identify, and counter the power that controls what we see, hear and read — in our classrooms, our periodicals, and in our motion pictures — and which determines how we view history, our world and ourselves — not just the history of what is called “the Holocaust,” but the history and background of World War II, the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Middle East turmoil, and much, much more.

History, as the old saying goes, is written by the victors. In our society, the “victors,” that is, the most important single group that sets our perspective on the past through its grip on the media, and on our cultural life, is the organized Jewish community .

This reality is hardly a secret. Michael Medved, a well-known Jewish author and film critic, has acknowledged: “It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish power and prominence in popular culture … Any list of the most influential production executives at each of the major movie stu­dios will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names.” / 27

One person who has carefully studied this subject is Jonathan J. Goldberg, editor of the influential Jewish community weekly Forward. In his 1996 book, Jewish Power, Goldberg wrote: / 28

“In a few key sectors of the media, notably among Hollywood stu­dio executives, Jews are so numerically dominant that calling these businesses Jewish-controlled is little more than a sta­tistical observation …

“Hollywood at the end of the twentieth century is still an industry with a pronounced ethnic tinge. Virtually all the senior executives at the major studios are Jews. Writers, pro­ducers, and to a lesser degree directors are disproportionately Jewish — one recent study showed the figure as high as 59 per­cent among top-grossing films.

“The combined weight of so many Jews in one of America’s most lucrative and important industries gives the Jews of Hollywood a great deal of political power. They are a major source of money for Democratic candidates.”

A writer for the Los Angeles Times, Joel Stein, boldly declared in December 2008, in a column for the influential daily paper: “As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood … I don’t care if Americans think we’re running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them.” / 29

Thirty seven years ago, two of the most powerful men in our country, indeed, in the world, frankly discussed this matter in a private conversation that should be much better known. It was in 1972, in the oval office of the White House. President Richard Nixon and the Rev. Billy Graham — the nation’s best-known and most influential Christian evangelist — were alone. These were not just prominent and influential men. They were shrewd and astute individuals who had accomplished much in their lives, and who had thought a lot about what they had observed and experienced over the years.

We know about this one-on-one conversation, and exactly what the two men said to each other, because Nixon had arranged for all conversations in his office to be secretly recorded. He regarded these recordings as his personal property, but he was later forced by court order to give them up. It wasn’t until thirty years later — in 2002 — that this conversation was finally made public. / 30

Here’s how their talk went. Graham said: “This stranglehold has got to be broken or the country’s going down the drain.” The President responded by saying: “You believe that?,” “Yes, sir,” said Graham. “Oh, boy,” Nixon replied, “So do I. I can’t ever say that, but I believe it.”

Now consider for a moment what this means, for America and the world, and for us today. Here’s the most powerful political personality in the United States at that time, indeed the most powerful man in the world, and the most influential religious figure in the US, in agreement about the Jewish hold on our media. They didn’t talk about the Jewish role in the media, or even Jewish domination of the media. They spoke about a Jewish “stranglehold” on our media.

For everyone who cares about our nation and the world, it’s worth asking and answering two questions. First, were Nixon and Graham right? Were they correct in what they said that day about what they called the Jewish “stranglehold” on the media? And, second, if they were right, what does that say about America and our society?

Two of the most influential men in our country were so afraid of the intimidating power of the organized Jewish community that they felt unable to even mention this “stranglehold” publicly — that’s the term Graham used — on our media, a “stranglehold” that they regarded as so harmful that unless it is broken, America, again, their words, is “going down the drain.” What a telling commentary on the corruption and perversion of our national life! If Nixon and Graham were right, is it not important, indeed, imperative, to clearly and forthrightly address the reality of this hold on our media?

What has brought us together here this evening is, first and foremost, our interest in real history — our passion for a clearer understanding of the past, free of “politically correct” orthodoxy and stricture. But an awareness of real history is not enough. It is important to understand the how and why of the systematic distortion of history in our society, and the power behind that distortion. Understanding and countering that power is a critically important task, not merely for the sake of historical truth in the abstract, but for the sake of our nation and humankind.

Notes

1. Time magazine issue of Oct. 15, 1945.
2. Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, The German Expellees: Victims in War and Peace (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993). See also: Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, A Terrible Revenge: The Ethnic Cleansing of the Eastern European Germans, 1944-1950 (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994); Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, Nemesis at Potsdam: The Expulsion of the Germans From the East (Lincoln: Univ. of Nebraska, 1989. 3rd rev. ed.)
3. Giles MacDonogh, After the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation (New York: Basic Books, 2007). See also the review of this book by Mark Weber, “New Book Details Mass Killings and Brutal Mistreatment of Germans at the End of World War Two.” (IHR: 2007).
( http://www.ihr.org/other/afterthereich072007.html )
On this subject, see also: Douglas Botting, From the Ruins of the Reich: Germany 1945-1949 (New York: Crown, 1985); Richard Bessel, Germany 1945: From War to Peace (New York: Harper, 2009); Freda Utley, The High Cost of Vengeance (Chicago: H. Regnery, 1949); James Bacque, Crimes and Mercies: The Fate of German Civilians Under Allied Occupation 1944-1950 (Little, Brown: 1997).
4. George F. Kennan, Memoirs 1925-1950 (Boston: 1967), p. 265. Also quoted in: A.-M. de Zayas, The German Expellees (1993), p. 62.
5. G. MacDonogh, After the Reich (2007), pp. 47-50.
6. Ralph Franklin Keeling, Gruesome Harvest: The Allies’ Postwar War Against the German People (IHR, 1992), pp. 59-60. (In the original edition, published in Chicago in 1947, pp. 55-56.). Also mentioned, in part, in: Max Hastings, Armageddon: The Battle for Germany 1944-1945 (New York: Alfred Knopf, 2004), p. 479.
7. R. Keeling, Gruesome Harvest (1992), pp.15-16.
8. R. Keeling, Gruesome Harvest (1992), p. 15.
9. R. Keeling, Gruesome Harvest (1992), p. 61. See also: R. Bessel, Germany 1945 (2009), pp. 116-117; Max Hastings, Armageddon (2004), pp. 428-431; G. MacDonogh, After the Reich (2007), pp. 78-79.
10. Günter Bischoff and Stephen Ambrose, Eisenhower and the German POWs (Louisiana State University Press, 1992), pp. 9-10 (incl. n. 24), 58-64, 147 (n. 33), 178.
11. G. MacDonogh, After the Reich (2007), pp. 392-395. See also: James Bacque, Crimes and Mercies (1997), pp. 41-45.
12. G. MacDonogh, After the Reich (2007), pp. 396-399; G. Bischoff and S. Ambrose, Eisenhower and the German POWs (1992), pp. 165, 169, 170
13. R. Keeling, Gruesome Harvest (1992), pp. 27-28 (or pp. 26-27 of the 1947 edition)
14. R. Keeling, Gruesome Harvest (1992), p. 26.
15. “Secrets of the London Cage,” The Guardian (London), Nov. 12, 2005
( http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/nov/12/secondworldwar.world ); G. MacDonogh, After the Reich (2007), pp. 412- 413. F. Utley, The High Cost of Vengeance (1949), pp. 185-201.
16. G. MacDonogh, After the Reich (2007), pp. 400, 406.
17. A.-M. de Zayas, The German Expellees (1993), p. 113.
18. G. MacDonogh, After the Reich (2007), pp. 362-363; G. Bischoff and S. Ambrose, Eisenhower and the German POWs (1992), pp. 12, 106, 109.
19. G. MacDonogh, After the Reich (2007), p. 362.
20. G. MacDonogh, After the Reich (2007), pp. 362-365.
21. A.-M. de Zayas, The German Expellees (1993), p. 108.
22. A.-M. de Zayas, The German Expellees (1993), p. 85.
23. A.-M. de Zayas, The German Expellees (1993), pp. 86-92.
24. John Sack, An Eye For An Eye (2000. Fourth, revised and updated edition);
See also: “Behind An Eye for an Eye, an IHR Conference address by John Sack, May 2000. ( http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v20/v20n1p-9_Sack.html )
25. G. MacDonogh, After the Reich (2007), pp. 38, 382, 386 , 389.
26. Jackson letter to Truman, Oct. 12, 1945. State Department files. Quoted in: R. Conot, Justice at Nuremberg (1983), p. 68. Also quoted in: M. Weber, “The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust,” The Journal of Historical Review (Vol. 12, No. 2), Summer 1992. ( http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p167_Webera.html )
27. M. Medved, “Is Hollywood Too Jewish?,” Moment, Vol. 21, No. 4 (1996), p. 37. Also quoted in: M. Weber, “A Straight Look at the Jewish Lobby”
( http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/jewishlobby.shtml )
28. Jonathan Jeremy Goldberg, Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment (Addison-Wesley, 1996), pp. 280, 287-288. See also pp. 39-40, 290-291.
29. J. Stein, “How Jewish Is Hollywood?,” Los Angeles Times, Dec. 19, 2008.
( http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-stein19-2008dec19,0,4676183.column )
30. “Nixon, Billy Graham Make Derogatory Comments About Jews on Tapes,” Chicago Tribune, March 1, 2002 (or Feb. 28, 2002)
( http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/02/Graham_Nixon.html ); “Billy Graham Apologizes for ’72 Remarks,” Associated Press, Los Angeles Times, March 2, 2002. “Graham Regrets Jewish Slur,” BBC News, March 2, 2002. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1850077.stm ). The conversation apparently took place on Feb. 1, 1972.

Read Full Post »



Read Full Post »

Older Posts »