patrick.net

Start by ending the war on drugs and you can minimize that number by quite a bit (incl. the disproportionate arrest of blacks for possessing drugs). Unfortunately that's not a position held by the mainstream democrats or republicans, only by libertarians.

mell says

Start by ending the war on drugs and you can minimize that number by quite a bit (incl. the disproportionate arrest of blacks for possessing drugs). Unfortunately that's not a position held by the mainstream democrats or republicans, only by libertarians.

This is true. if drugs were regulated like alcohol-our bursting prison systems would be cut down to size and many men won't be barred from good jobs, because of drug busts and prison terms that will show up in background checks for job applications. How is one supposed to put your past behind you and move on when you can't??

Dan8267 says

You hit it on the nail. There is a difference between acknowledging and
dealing with the fact that blacks murder whites more than the reverse and
presuming that a given black is a would-be murderer.

Yup this is my whole point about the TM case. Wether it is murders or crimes blacks do have a higher proportion of crimes. There is nothing wrong in acknowledging that or even looking at why. But in one of the companies I worked for as a consultant, the Director was a black woman who rose up from humble beginnings. Does this mean if she walks home in my neighbourhood with her son, I should follow them and get in a fight and kill them-because they look funny?

Also black welfare is very high. I read that blacks make up 10% of population but 30+ % of welfare-which is just wrong. Well, it more or less mirrors CA's ratios . But maybe the govt should start matching folks on welfare with "undesirable" jobs like working in the fields or some such. But that is off topic .

What percentage of "whites murdering blacks" in South Florida is actually "Cubans, Dominicans and Puerto Ricans" vs Anglo whites?

Dan8267 says

Now the information that blacks murder whites more often than white murder blacks might be useful. The immediate question that comes to mind is why? Is it the result of poverty, racism, the gap between haves and have nots, culture, lack of education, or something else?

At the very least, the odds are that it would reduce their chances of becoming drug dealing pawns on the street, living at home with mom, taking penitentiary chances to make a living and making less on a per-hour basis than a mcdonalds cashier.

http://www.freakonomics.com/books/freakonomics/chapter-excerpts/chapter-3/

lostand confused says

But maybe the govt should start matching folks on welfare with "undesirable" jobs like working in the fields or some such. But that is off topic .

Dan8267 says

If the goal is to minimize murders, asking the why question is what's important.

That is rarely the actual goal in these sorts of observations.

Goals are usually one or more of:
Less of something
More of something
Nothing at all
Apartheid
Pretend this is the Natural Order and we should accept it

Dan8267 says

Now the information that blacks murder whites more often than white murder blacks might be useful. The immediate question that comes to mind is why? Is it the result of poverty, racism, the gap between haves and have nots, culture, lack of education, or something else?

I think it's poverty and attitude. Because most murders happen in the black ghettos. Normal blacks, or even non blacks, don't go around murdering others.

Crime rises with poverty. Especially in communities that have a mindset of violence. I remember one time when my wife and I were flipping through the channels we saw one of those channels for "black entertainment". It was very violent. And that's what those people watch out there I assume, since it is "black entertainment".

Maybe blacks just have better aim than whites.

Call it Crazy says

Moderate Infidel says

Maybe blacks just have better aim than whites.

You might have something there.... In Chicago, the blacks get a lot of practice on moving targets...

But they have strict gun control in Chicago so it must be crime free.

+10 for Moderate Infidel

Moderate Infidel says

But they have strict gun control in Chicago so it must be crime free.

not when racial profiling is heavily practiced.

FortWayne says

I think it's poverty and attitude. Because most murders happen in the black ghettos. Normal blacks, or even non blacks, don't go around murdering others.

Its kind of strange to call it "poverty"... the shooters are all into the highly $$$ drug trade. Same is true across the border in Mexico.. its not the poor who are shooting themself.. its the highly rich street gangsters who are making lots of money...

Depends what you define as normal ? what is normal in the black community?

Mark D says

not when racial profiling is heavily practiced.

organize and arm a hundred community members into night patrols and see

what happens.. let them learn how to spot the local street gangster hanging

around 2-3am in the morning...

who are they going to find most often ? Most likely a Latino or Black

I've been victimized by both whites and blacks. Hispanics like me. Was yelled at by a Jew once.

FortWayne says

I think it's poverty and attitude. Because most murders happen in the black ghettos. Normal blacks, or even non blacks, don't go around murdering others.

Crime rises with poverty. Especially in communities that have a mindset of violence. I remember one time when my wife and I were flipping through the channels we saw one of those channels for "black entertainment". It was very violent. And that's what those people watch out there I assume, since it is "black entertainment".

I definitely think it's cultural. "Thug life", or "gangsta life" is popular with a lot of youth in the black community. It glorifies violence, shooting in vengeance with a "nina" which I guess is slang for a pistol, and also gaining wealth at all cost, even in illicit activities.

In Korea town in Los Angeles, you have a lot of run down ghetto areas, but the incidence of Korean originated violent crime is 10x less than comparable black originated violent crime in South LA only a few miles away. So why the huge disparity?

I think it's culture.

An interesting aside, in 2009, FBI statistics showed that blacks committed more murders than whites, and hispanics (excluding hispanics of non-white origin) combined. Also blacks who did commit murders overwhelming killed other blacks, and whites.

Also, out of all rape committed against white women, blacks were responsible for over 1/3. Rape of black women by white men was almost statistically ZERO, which surprised me actually.

Goran_K says

I think it's culture.

Race creates culture. Racially diverse cultures are a new concept in the modern world. People simply couldn't travel the distance to reach another land like they can today, nor were they accepted as equals if they did reach the new land. It's simply wrong to think that if blacks were in Europe tens of thousands of years ago that they would create the same basic culture and civilization that whites did.

Hypothetically speaking, if one group believed that another group historically oppressed them and were still treating them unfairly today, it would make sense for those 2 groups to want to separate through violence or peaceful relocation. By separating, there could be no more claims of oppression and everyone would be left to make their own fate.

Blacks do not want this separation. Blacks want to live in a white dominated world as a privileged citizen. Whites give blacks this in the USA with legally protected classes, AA/EO and the willingness to subsidize degenerate black behavior with white funded tax dollars.

Goran_K says

Also, out of all rape committed against white women, blacks were responsible for over 1/3. Rape of black women by white men was almost statistically ZERO, which surprised me actually.

The average black woman can kick you're cracka ass.

Also black women are busy being raped by their mommas boyfriend and white guys don't like to share.

foxmannumber1 says

It's simply wrong to think that if blacks were in Europe tens of thousands of years ago that they would create the same basic culture and civilization that whites did.

Well, that's precisely what happened. When humanity started in tropical Africa, the human female selected their mates for darker skin pigmentation: so as to avoid easy skin burns and skin cancer. All homo sapien sapien ancestors were black. When a small subgroup migrated to higher latitude Europe, the relative lack of sunshine made darker skin color not a asset but a liability: pigmentation blocked out UV, which is necessary for Vitamin D generation and calcium absorption. So the human female started selecting mates for traits that was helpful for good teeth and strong bones in high latitude long dark winter . . . that meant lighter skin tones. Incidentally, that may well have incorporated some Neanderthal males that had already been living in Europe. Neanderthal genes are more pronounced among whites from Europe.

Sexual selection takes effect very quickly. The social stratefication of North America has already produced a much lighter skinned "African American" population than the original shipped from Africa. That took only a few hundred years.

Neanderthal DNA is found in every sub species of human except sub Saharan Africans.

http://news.discovery.com/human/genetics-neanderthal-110718.htm

This is pretty convincing evidence that I believe proves the racial egalitarians wrong. We are all *not* the same if everyone but one race has DNA from mating with another species.

"African Americans" are not pure bred sub Saharan Africans, which lightens their skin tone.

lostand confused says

Wether it is murders or crimes blacks do have a higher proportion of crimes. There is nothing wrong in acknowledging that or even looking at why.

What are the percentages of whites who get charged at all? What percentage have good lawyers? What percentage get released on their own recognizance? What percentage of whites get charged with lesser crimes? What percentage plea bargain?

Profiling results in survival. I am pro-profiling. As a matter of fact, I am a pro-pro-profiler.

Straw Man says

Mark D says

Moderate Infidel says

But they have strict gun control in Chicago so it must be crime free.

not when racial profiling is heavily practiced.

Are you saying that inner city thugs who commit the lion share of killing in Chicago profile each other racially?

no. see if you can figure it out.

Everyone profiles, just like everyone is racist to some degree.

Straw Man says

Are you saying that inner city thugs who commit the lion share of killing in Chicago profile each other racially?

This is true with Latino vs Afro-American gangs.. yes.. its true!

throw in lots of name calling and racism.. turf fight !

out comes the guns ... and you get a brutal shot out..

out

I learnt about the blacks by watching The Wire.

So a rational white person should be about 100 times more afraid of being killed by a car than being killed by a black person.

Most crimes are intraracial.

The graphic is intentionally misleading. It leaves out Hispanic/latino/mestizo americans, the 2nd most criminal race in the USA behind blacks.

As an example, Take a look at all the "white" males on the texas 10 most wanted fugitives list.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/Texas10MostWanted/fugitives.aspx

All except 1 are listed as white males when in reality they are Hispanic.

The FBI does the same biased reporting.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-43

No category for Hispanics/latinos/mestizos. They are lumped in with the whites.

They do this intentionally because if the majority population of the USA, non Hispanic whites, were to realize how much of the crime in his country is committed by blacks and Hispanics something would have to be done about it. The powers that be don't want anything to be done to stop minority crime.

Upon visiting colorlines.com, they have a whole section on articles about Paula Dean calling a black thief who put a loaded gun to her head a 'nigger' 25 years ago. I would not except an honest discussion of race from them.

Each year, in the National Crime Victimization Survey(NCVS), the Bureau of Justice Statistics asks as many as 134,000 Americans what crimes they were victims of, and who the perpetrator was.

In 2008, for single-offender crimes, compared to whites, blacks were much more likely to commit every violent crime: 2.1 times as likely to commit simple assault, 3.1 times as likely to commit aggravated assault, 4.0 times as likely to commit rape/sexual assault, and 7.6 times as likely to commit robbery (mugging).

For multiple-offender (gang) crimes, blacks were even more dangerous compared to whites: 2.9 times as likely to commit simple assault (in a gang), 6.4 times as likely to commit aggravated assault, 7.3 times as likely to commit rape/sexual assault, and 36 times as likely to commit robbery.

These multiples are actually too low because the NCVS counts most Hispanics as white, which increases the "white" crime rate.

"But black crime is caused by poverty"

Actually, race differences in crime rates persist after controlling for socioeconomic status(Lauritsen & Sampson, "Minorities, Crime, and Criminal Justice," 2000). That's why the single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic, with a startling 81% correlation (The Color of Crime, 2005). The next best indicators are lack of education (with only a 37% correlation), poverty (with a 36% correlation), and unemployment (with a 35% correlation).

Control for all three, and the race-crime correlation only drops to 78%! In the simplest terms: if blacks had the same jobs, incomes, and educations as whites, they would commit violent crime at almost exactly the same rate they do now. It's easy to blame society for black crime, but it doesn't fit the facts.

Think about it: how can poverty cause rape?

What about unemployment causing arson?

And why concoct implausible excuses for violent criminals, anyway? Who are we protecting?

To address these myths:

1. 14% of whites aren't killed by whites. 6% of blacks aren't killed by blacks. Why are blacks killing whites at over twice the rate?

2. I think violent crime stats are down because we have a lot of blacks in jail already.
I also think that crimes are being wrongly classified or not reported in official numbers at all to make the crime stats appear better.
If someone of rank does not play ball with this policy, they are simply replaced by someone who will.
It's no different than the Atlanta public school cheating scandal.

3. Blacks are more flagrant in their drug use. Whites keep it private.
Blacks are also more likely to be dealers, who also have a host of other charges against them during a drug bust. Guns/theft/assault/parole/etc.
They plead guilty on the drugs and the other charges simply go away, leaving only a drug crime on record. This helps the stats as presented in myth #2.

4. Public schools are run by liberals who bend over backwards not to report blacks for behavioral issues.
Only the worst offending blacks are sent for discipline after numerous violations.
Even with the liberals and other blacks running the show, blacks are still expelled/suspended more frequently simply because they commit more violations.
Blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime. It starts in their early years and continues on to their adult life.

5. Black neighborhoods are far more crime ridden than any other place in the USA.
Crime is an inverse of general IQ test results.
Blacks have the lowest IQ of any major race in the USA. Blacks commit the most crime of any major race in the USA.

Good post. To address #4, Trayvon's theft of thousands of dollars of jewelry was ignored by the schools officer. They reported it as "found property", found in his bag with a burglary tool.

indigenous says

Typical Jew!

Great idea, let's just not use colors anymore to describe anything color ;)

Sorry Morgan, but they were actually calling you something else.

foxmannumber1 says

Neanderthal DNA is found in every sub species of human except sub Saharan Africans.

http://news.discovery.com/human/genetics-neanderthal-110718.htm

This is pretty convincing evidence that I believe proves the racial egalitarians wrong. We are all *not* the same if everyone but one race has DNA from mating with another species.

Neanderthals were not another species, but a subspecies of homo sapien, just like us modern humans. Neanderthal DNA only constitute a tiny percentage of overall human DNA, obviously result of interbreeding. The absence of Neanderthal DNA in sub-sahara african population is fairly strong proof that modern human (home sapien sapien) came out of sub-Sahara Africa, some of them interbred with Neanderthals after moving out of Africa.

Moderate Infidel says

indigenous says

Typical Jew!

Please elaborate....

dublin hillz says

Please elaborate....

It's a clever joke.

indigenous says

Tell that to the Treyvon supporters who are out protesting...

Reality says

Neanderthals were not another species, but a subspecies of homo sapien

This is false. For many years it was undisputed that Neanderthals were a different species closely related to modern humans.

Since the realization that everyone but sub Saharan Africans have Neanderthal DNA some liberal quasi scientists with a social agenda try to say that they were no different from modern humans and in the same species and the differences are worthless, which is obviously false.

Subspecies is another word for 'breed' or 'race'.