Whenever gun control becomes a hot topic, you see white liberals going through a set pattern of contortions, one most fully worked out in Michael Moore's Oscar-winning Bowling for Columbine:
- Racist white rednecks in the sticks want guns because they have racist fears of urban blacks;
- So, we must disarm everybody to stop rednecks from killing so many
Deconstructed, this bizarre theory actually makes a fair amount of sense:
- Liberal whites in the cities want gun control because they have realist fears of urban blacks;
- So, we must disarm everybody to stop blacks from killing so many.
But, white people don't like talking about black people, they like talking about how much they hate other white people.
They especially like coming up with theories about other kinds of white people. For example, the state with the highest homicide rate is usually Louisiana. Just think what savage redneck monsters white people in Louisiana must be. Didn't you watch Deliverance or read Albion's Seed?
(Of course, the murder rate in Louisiana is only about half of that in Washington D.C.. Has anybody checked out what Ezra Klein, Chris Matthews, Cokie Roberts are up to?)
They really don't like it when I point out that state-by-state differences in murders are dominated by the percent black.
Anyway, I read a lot of theories about differences in white homicide rates between the states, but does anybody have any good numbers?
The Bureau of Justice Statistics will tell you the homicide rates for the whole country for blacks and "whites" (whites plus Hispanics), but I can't find rates by states.
It's not hard to find homicide rates per state overall, but not by race.
Here's an unsourced table on what percent of homicide victims are by race by state, which might be a piece of the puzzle.
Finally, it would be best to have a decade or so of data since murder rates in small states jump around semi-randomly.
- Racist white rednecks in the sticks want guns because they have racist fears of urban blacks;
- So, we must disarm everybody to stop rednecks from killing so many
Deconstructed, this bizarre theory actually makes a fair amount of sense:
- Liberal whites in the cities want gun control because they have realist fears of urban blacks;
- So, we must disarm everybody to stop blacks from killing so many.
But, white people don't like talking about black people, they like talking about how much they hate other white people.
They especially like coming up with theories about other kinds of white people. For example, the state with the highest homicide rate is usually Louisiana. Just think what savage redneck monsters white people in Louisiana must be. Didn't you watch Deliverance or read Albion's Seed?
(Of course, the murder rate in Louisiana is only about half of that in Washington D.C.. Has anybody checked out what Ezra Klein, Chris Matthews, Cokie Roberts are up to?)
They really don't like it when I point out that state-by-state differences in murders are dominated by the percent black.
Anyway, I read a lot of theories about differences in white homicide rates between the states, but does anybody have any good numbers?
The Bureau of Justice Statistics will tell you the homicide rates for the whole country for blacks and "whites" (whites plus Hispanics), but I can't find rates by states.
It's not hard to find homicide rates per state overall, but not by race.
Here's an unsourced table on what percent of homicide victims are by race by state, which might be a piece of the puzzle.
Finally, it would be best to have a decade or so of data since murder rates in small states jump around semi-randomly.
Posts
113 comments:
As long as you are doing this, it is a common argument to state that the Red States get more benefits than they pay in taxes, and the Blue States get less return than they pay in taxes.
This is certainly true, but I wonder how the numbers would look if analyzed with the percent of the population that is NAM included.
Some of the sparsely populated western states wouldn't budge looked at in this way (their very existence is due to spending by the federal government on vast public works).
But it would be interesting.
My hunch? Giving the stats in a way that makes such a comparison easy would be "against the narrative," and more generally an example of what Instapundit was talking about here:
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/159456/
Steve: The FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports provide data on race, age, sex, and ethnicity of victim(s) and offender(s) and data on jurisdiction. You can directly access these data and create tables on the fly at the University of Michigan's Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Science Research. The link is http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/NACJD/series/57/studies/30767?paging.startRow=1&keyword[0]=crime+reporting&classification=NACJD.XIV. I may try and do the analysis later. If I do, I'll get in touchand give you the results.
"Liberal whites in the cities want gun control because they have realist fears of urban blacks."
This isn't what it's about--even though Sailer is correct that liberals would rather talk about rednecks than about badblacks; similarly, NY liberals would rather talk about 'white privilege' to do something about Asian over-representation in elite NY schools; but conservatives play this game too; though conservatives oppose 'affirmative action' out of white interests, they make it seem like 'affirmative action' must be ended because it stigmatizes and hurts blacks; and though the European Right opposes immigration to preserve white power, they make it sound like they are opposing immigration to protect Jews and gays from Muslims.
If white liberals fear blacks with guns, shouldn't they be for gun ownership to protect themselves from black thugs?
Also, urban liberals must know that criminal blacks all got guns ILLEGALLY. I mean did gun control keep guns out of blacks in DC or Detroit? Or Chicago or St. Louis? Or Philadelphia or Cleveland?
Surely, urban liberals know that gun control does nothing to take guns away from blacks. Drugs are illegal, but people can get illegal drugs. Guns cannot be sold legally to criminals, but criminals get guns. I've spent time in Chicago, St. Louis, and Cleveland; and people tell me that tons of young black kids have guns. They sure didn't get them legally.
So, why do liberals support gun control? It depends on whom you're asking. The dumb or sucker liberals really believe in all the crap that the big media fill their minds with, but dumb or sucker liberals don't have power. They are running dogs, sheeple.
Liberals with real power, the Jewish controllers of the media, wanna take away guns because they don't want an armed white population. Jews are nervous that as America becomes more diverse and as globalism creates more class divisions, there may be a breaking point and massive resistance and violence. Jews also know that GOP is toast. GOP used to absorb and channel--as release valve--the passions of 'angry white male'. But as GOP will no longer be able to win national elections, more whites are gonna turn to guns as their source of power.
This is why Jews want all the guns in the hands of government they control.
The data aren't hard to find for some cities, either. So for example, it's not too hard to find that the odds of a white person getting murdered in Oakland are only about twice the odds of a white person getting murdered somewhere in the U.S.
State level data may require compiling data from each state, rather than through a federal agency. BJS and the FBI have a bunch of data, but don't seem to have
Keep in mind that even the national figures for murders by race of the murderer can only represent cases for which a perpetrator was found and conviction obtained, which may be more likely for white victims, which cases the police may try harder to solve or for which they may obtain more cooperation from witnesses, and for murders committed by family members and friends, which may be easier to investigate and solve. This may bias the estimates of murderers by race.
Here's an unsourced table on what percent of homicide victims are by race by state, which might be a piece of the puzzle.
The table at that link has the source: Bureau of Justice statistics. Search the page for the word 'source' if you don't notice the word 'source' at the top of the table.
Is the murder rate difference between El Paso and Juarez explained by the wealth inequality of the two cities?
goatweed
Drilling into the tables on the graph Steve provided a link to shows some interesting figures as well. My state (WA) breakout of lynchings for both black and white from 1882 to 1968 show 1 black lynching to 25 white ones. Fascinating stuff. But, I don't notice anything and I certainly will not be the first white person to stop clapping.
OT, but interesting there's been no post here on Hagel. About half of the Weekly Standard's home page has been them flipping out about this. Seems right up your ally.
Even a graph of homicides vs percentage black is hard to come by. I couldn't find one with a google image search. Anyone got a link to one?
I'd like to see homicides - predicted through racial composition vs observed in the manner of La Griffe du Lion as per here. Violent crimes is one thing, but homicide stats are hard to fudge.
Here's the Statemaster link for white homicide victims by state:
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_hom_vic_by_rac_whi-crime-homicide-victims-race-white
According to this chart, Vermont is the least safe state for white people to live in :)
California's not looking too good. We get killed at a much higher rate than our percentage of the population (62 percent homicide victims versus 40 percent of the population. Although maybe they are including Hispanics in the homicide total.)
"If white liberals fear blacks with guns, shouldn't they be for gun ownership to protect themselves from black thugs?
Also, urban liberals must know that criminal blacks all got guns ILLEGALLY. I mean did gun control keep guns out of blacks in DC or Detroit? Or Chicago or St. Louis? Or Philadelphia or Cleveland?"
Exactly. Guns are legal most places in the US and so black criminals in a city are going to get them anyway. If white liberals don't want to carry guns themselves, they would at least benefit from concealed carry because criminals would be deterred in a city where a victim might be armed.
People's politics are based on identity, not "interests," even if people could perceive them accurately. Liberals oppose guns for the same reason they oppose the death penalty and war. It's a way to think of oneself as non-violent and morally superior.
West Virginia's homicide rate compared to those in the New England whitopias or even the similarly white, sparsely populated but heavily armed libertarian mountain states is certainly suggestive.
In the 1950s a kid could buy a gun mailorder. No government permission in anyway. No background checks, not 4473 paperwork. Nothing. Send money. Get gun.
Where were all the mass shootings back then?
Because Steve wisely gets that we aren't going to war again no matter who is DefSec. Why fight the left's battles for them.
http://oag.ca.gov/crime
Arrests, California, homicide, 2010.
48.7% hispanic, 25.3% black, 17.9% white, 7.4% other. The pdf has similar stats for 2001-2010
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html
Hispanic pop 14.4 million
Black population 2.5 million
White population 15 million
Homicide arrest rate/100,000,
black 16.6
Hispanic 5.5
White Non-Hisp 2.0
Are there any individual cities that are comparable in population size, average purchasing power per capita, and/or racial makeup to other foreign cities? It'd be interesting to see what crime rates are like in foreign cities that compare closely in other measures with, say, Detroit or Chicago.
Ah, but Steve, this is sort of highly useful and enlightening statistic which the left has no interest in discovering.
Remember this comment from "Urban Baby": "But how about the Midwest and Kentucky? Plenty of scary white people there. You seem really uninformed." Fools like the person who wrote that have no interest in being disabused of their ignorance. After all, finding out that the whites from the Midwest or Kentucky weren't so scary would deprive them of one of this favorite rhetorical tools: sneering at red-state whites.
Actually law enforcement generally supports gun control. The rest of the political class generally does not challenge law enforcement.
In general urban elite whites think rural whites are ignorant and naive. Their desire to own guns is childish and irrational, like they are. Just like those Hummers those yokels used to drive. Sort of like rich people needing to own sports cars, although no one would dare question sports car ownership. I do not think urban elites believe that rural whites own guns due to fear of blacks specifically.
California 2010 arrests by race:
http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/cjsc/prof10/18-22/00.pdf?
Table 22
"Racist white rednecks in the sticks want guns because they have racist fears of urban blacks;"
I think those were survivalists, who have it seems been replaced these days by so called preppers. After the fall of the Soviet Union the threat of urban masses searching rural America after a nuclear attack for food has left the common imagination. Also living with the urban masses in Harlem is both possible (for Whites) and cool again.
Actually law enforcement generally supports gun control.
Nah. The street cops are generally pro-gun. The political police chiefs are generally anti-gun.
"Also living with the urban masses in Harlem is both possible (for Whites) and cool again."
That's probably because the NYPD has superpowers (i.e.,"stop-and-frisk") that other urban police forces don't have. And Harlem has been undergoing gentrification for quite a while.
Deconstructed, this bizarre theory actually makes a fair amount of sense:
- Liberal whites in the cities want gun control because they have realist fears of urban blacks;
- So, we must disarm everybody to stop blacks from killing so many.
No, it doesn't make sense...how do these geniuses not think their way to point #3:
- The government would be completely incompetent and unfair at carrying out this task.
Remember this comment from "Urban Baby": "But how about the Midwest and Kentucky? Plenty of scary white people there. You seem really uninformed."
Sounds like paranoid legends ultimately derived from "hate America" novels by Philip Roth.
Vox Day [a great blogger, btw] had a post recently on national murder rates by race, at http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/12/hispanic-firearms-homicide-rate.html
white 0.32 per 100K
latino 6.8 [per
black 12.5
http://www.amren.com/news/2012/12/the-black-florence-nightingale-and-the-making-of-a-pc-myth/
Mother Badassa
Very interesting to search the site for victim by sex. The rural, whiter, safer states have a much higher percentage of female victims. I'd assume that the drug trade from more more urban states leads to an increase in male deaths, but it still seems odd that women would make up a majority of the homicides in any state.
sunbeam said of sparsely populated western states: "...their very existence is due to spending by the federal government on vast public works…"
Got any recent examples, pardner?
The decades old Hoover Dam doesn't count nor do the various military installations.
cipher
Steve,
The unsourced table is from http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Homicide/State/OneYearofData.cfm
In case nobody can find actual homicide rates by race for each state, I looked at homicide rates versus racial makeup for all states. Taken alone, it basically says avoid blacks, stick around whites, and be agnostic about Hispanics and Asians, if you're concered about being killed by someone.
Homicide data from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf (table 19)
Demographic data from http://www.census.gov/popest/data/state/asrh/2008/tables/SC-EST2008-04.xls
Steve keeps saying that the only reason liberal Whites want guns banned is fear of black criminals. And White liberals are angry at White conservatives for not backing them up.
This doesn't seem very likely. White liberals support gun bans in places that are very White. And god knows some very White parts of Europe have bans.
Rather, it seems to be some psychological desire to, well, emasculate everyone. They truly seem to like the idea of a very pacified population under central control.
You know how liberals always compare the US to Norway? This has always seemed like an apple a fruit wagon comparison seeing that Norway is a small homogeneous almost all white country while the USA is this massive multiracial conglomeration of various differing peoples and governments.
Well I've been wondering for a while what the states of the US would be if you compared The US controlling for the racial differences between the countries?
What is the GDP of white america compared to that of western euro states? what's the life expectancy, violent crime rate?
"Because Steve wisely gets that we aren't going to war again no matter who is DefSec. Why fight the left's battles for them."
Well, no one here is in any position to fight any battles for anyone anyway. But if the neo-cons are freaking out, guaranteed to be a good thing. I wonder what our friend Whiskey thinks. This Politico account says it all:
"Two of the biggest criticisms of Hagel have been his past positions on Israel and that his appointment wouldn’t increase diversity in the Cabinet. Flournoy is the solution to both those problems, a senior Republican Senate aide told POLITICO."
http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/chuck-hagel-allies-fire-back-critics-push-for-michele-flournoy-85336.html
Definitely the two most important qualities in a Defense Secretary.
The per capita murder rate in White America must be similar to the per capita murder rate in Scandinavian countries.
The per capita murder rate in NAM America (Non Asian Minority) must be similar to the per capita murder rate in Caribbean countries.
Given so much urban black violence against whites is physical in nature--as blacks are tougher--as when Yglesias got beat up, it doesn't make sense for white liberals to get rid of guns. Liberals call for gun control/ban because they are dupes of the liberal Jewish elites who want to take guns away from white gentiles.
I am a white lawyer living in the San Fernando Valley, just down the road from Mr. Sailer. I own gun because I want government actors to know that there are people out there with guns. Knowing that their constituency is armed influences their decision making process. Also, I believe that civil society is a thin veneer and beneath it is a world in which you want a gun. Blacks and Latinos are a distant third, but still a factor.
Big-city cops want us disarmed because an enormous part of police work involves unconstitutional searches of homes and automobiles. It's a pain in the ass to violate someone's 4th amendment rights when they are packing.
HAR I am not a neo-con, but I do support a active american military which admittedly puts me on the whiskey axis on this site, but read The American Conservative for a couple weeks and you see just how counter-productive it is to get caught up fighting the neo-cons while letting the left slip by unscathed. They let people from ThinkProgress post articles on gun control there. To the extent that the neo-cons have power, it is a function of their connections in media, and their perceived media saviness. The only way to defeat the neo-cons is the slay the MSM behemoth that nourishes them.
Obama and Eric Holder are pushing for legislation that would remove the 90-day-waiting-period that is applied to new immigrants to America (over 80% non-European) to legally buy a firearm as enforced by the ATF. A provision in the 1968Gun Control Act apparently gives the ATF authority to enforce this 90-day-requirement.
One might ask themselves if Obama/Holder are that equalitarian (their argument is that they want the law to be the same "for all Americans", regardless of how long they have lived here), or are they that cynical (a couple of Islamic fanatics shooting up a shopping mall or subway could be quite a opportunity to scare white people who normally would cling to their guns into accepting some new gun-restricting-legislation, as weasely-worded-as-congressional-aides-could-craft-it, that might be judicially shown to be much more comprehensive than sold to the public, etc. Nah, the Democrats would never do that). This idea by Obama/Holder was proposed after the Newton shootings btw! Man they sure are equalitarians, aren't they?
You can read about that here:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/24/Merry-Christmas-immigrants-Obama-Holder-push-to-loosen-alien-gun-sales-restrictions.
Sidwell-Friends-School, where the Obama daughters attend, and Chelsa Clinton graduated from, has several (11 according to a Drudge link last week) armed guards. Just sayin'.
"Very interesting to search the site for victim by sex. The rural, whiter, safer states have a much higher percentage of female victims. I'd assume that the drug trade from more more urban states leads to an increase in male deaths, but it still seems odd that women would make up a majority of the homicides in any state."
It doesn't seem odd at all. In places with less street crime, the majority of homicides are probably domestic incidents, with women, in most cases, getting killed by their husbands, boyfriends, or exes.
This latest left-wing gun-grab follows hard on the heels of section 8 housing. The 'liberals' are shipping the criminal black underclass they created into the suburbs and boonies, and want to disarm suburban and rural whites: no wonder 'liberals' like Whiskey and TUJ want to blame anyone else, no matter how silly.
Of all the Democratic constituencies, the only ones worth pursuing are white women and German/Scandinavian Midwesterners.
Leftists love to say that certain red states have high welfare usage and low average IQs. No one will ever say which segment of the population gives them average IQs lower than the countrywide average.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXX8uLCm518
novy god or new year in russian
I wonder how you guys explain the fact that unarmed liberal Whites have been retaking the inner cities even as the country keeps getting browner, while the well-armed conservative Whites are hiding in the rural areas with their gold coins and canned food stockpiles, waiting for the system to collapse.
"I wonder how you guys explain the fact that unarmed liberal Whites have been retaking the inner cities even as the country keeps getting browner"
They got money, law, and government. Police work hard to protect gentrically cleansed zones. Cops got guns.
Also, i think libs bought out the black leadership. Black masses cannot lead themselves no matter how angry they are--no more than white conservative masses can lead themselves.
If you lop off the head, the body has no clue. Black leadership or head has been bought off with sweet deals. If black leaders go along, they get prizes in politics and business. And black leaders look at detroit and don't want that. They want whites to keep cities alive so that black leaders can get a slice of the pie by selling out their people. Obama did that and he sure got far.
And look at guys like sharpton selling out to the gay community and getting a tv spot.
As for white con leadership, it's been bought out by neocon Jews. White masses have no leadership, ans masses never led themselves in history.
"I wonder how you guys explain the fact that unarmed liberal Whites have been retaking the inner cities even as the country keeps getting browner"
Unarmed? The left is divided into two factions: useful idiots and "for me, but not for thee".
Vox Day would be a lot better blogger if he realized that comparing overall homicides is a better measure compared to just gun homicides. There are plenty of substitute weapons for guns that work well enough.
"In case nobody can find actual homicide rates by race for each state, I looked at homicide rates versus racial makeup for all states. Taken alone, it basically says avoid blacks, stick around whites, and be agnostic about Hispanics and Asians, if you're concered about being killed by someone. "
It would be interesting to see a least squares fit in the manner of La Griffe du Lion. I bet you'd get a better correlation coefficient than just the black percentage alone. Something seems wrong about the "be agnostic about Hispanics" conclusion. Asians yes, but not Hispanics. Hispanic incarceration rates for murder are too high in the known states to draw that conclusion, at least without more work done.
And the high homicide rate in Mexico coupled with the act of getting to the USA not exactly being a screen for law abiding behavior makes me think that more analysis is needed before we draw the conclusion that we should buy homes in a barrio.
Mexico's murder rates have a floor at about 10, and go significantly above that (above 50 for a 20 year period). The USA's stayed at 10 or under for the whole 20th century.
http://mexfiles.net/2012/06/04/murder-by-the-numbers-1930-2010/
"I wonder how you guys explain the fact that unarmed liberal Whites have been retaking the inner cities even as the country keeps getting browner..."
1. Single male gentrification vanguard; the only homebuyers that don't fret about public school quality.
2. Section 8 housing vouchers to export the bulk of the browner denizens after the vanguard moves in.
3. Facist police powers to enforce safety in relevant public spaces.
4. Revised zoning regs to restrict housing supply and keep prices high enough
That's the secret sauce! Slather some onto your neighborhood.
"Very interesting to search the site for victim by sex. The rural, whiter, safer states have a much higher percentage of female victims. I'd assume that the drug trade from more more urban states leads to an increase in male deaths, but it still seems odd that women would make up a majority of the homicides in any state."
Seems pretty obvious to me. More domestic violence in impoverished rural areas, more NAM violence (guys shooting each other) in urban areas. Both sides are capable of dirty deeds.
Myself, I'll take the rural whites--they usually leave you alone if you convert, from what I understand.
Many states don't have a breakdown, but I could find data on these selected states:
Massachusetts (2005-2009):
Asian: 1.0
White: 1.1
Hispanic: 6.2
Black: 16.9
Minnesota:
Black: 11.4
White: 0.7
West Virginia (2009)
White: 3.9*
Black: 16.6
* I had to estimate the rate by subtracting the number of black homicides from the total homicides in West Virginia.
California:
Average from 1998 to 2007
White: 2.56
Black: 27.73
Hispanic: 8.72
Other: 3.43
Colorado (1994 to 2003)
Black: 17.8
White: 2.8
Hispanic: 8.5
Asian: 3.1
United states 2007
White non-hispanic: 2.7
Black non-hispanic: 23.1
American Indian: 7.8
Hispanic: 7.6
Asian/Pacific Islander: 2.4
Other: 3.43
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6001a14.htm#tab1
I can provide links for individual state data if requested.
Vermont is the HUGE log in the gun control lobby's eye. Lowest murder rate in the nation, and, not surprisingly, among the loosest gun laws. Even the two middle-aged lesbians who own my girlfriend's favorite bed & breakfast are strapped.
As far as the cops go, it's been my experience that suburban cops, chiefs as well as the rank and file, are against concealed carry; they also seem to be far worse "cowboys" than the urban cops, who know the score. That dichotomy is especially evident in Blue States like mine.
Your local chief is the go-to guy for a pistol permit here in the People's Republic of Massachusetts. They are rare, and a good percentage of the licenses are held by people wired in to the local power structure. Most wouldn't trust of the CCW holders I know here with a burnt match!
A long time ago I read that there was no real war on drugs and that in fact, what happens is that a criminal with prior convictions for real crimes (like mugging, robbery, etc.) gets a superharsh sentence when re-convicted for *anything* (including drug possession offenses). I'll will be blunt in saying that I haven't researched this myself so I won't vouch for the truth of it but I wonder what other isteve readers have to say about it. At any rate, if its true, drug convictions are just another way of getting real criminals out of society's way, and if drugs are decriminalised, then sentences for other crimes would have to be increased in order to compensate.
I myself am no libertarian (i'm a conservative) but I am tending in the direction of legalisation, for a number of reasons such as 1) proxy methods of dealing with crime are dishonest and 2) people with serious illnesses (especially ones who have been failed by doctors) should have an unrestricted right to consume/inhale/inject any substances that they please, and the present legal/medical system makes it borderline impossible for someone in chronic pain just to get some morphine. I see this as a basic human right, like free speech and freedom of association.
Anon:"I wonder how you guys explain the fact that unarmed liberal Whites have been retaking the inner cities ..."
We don't "explain" it because it is not a "fact". Son, just saying it doesn't make it so. We are a "reality-based community". You are going to have to give examples of these "retakings". Since you can't give examples (with population statistics from a respectable source: census, etc.) you will be ignored.
Urban whites also fear keeping guns around children. Suicide and accidents are a possibility. 50 years ago, Adam Lanza would have just shot himself. That is probably doubly true if you are the only family on the block to own a gun because it becomes a hazard for the other inquisitive children in the neighborhood who's parents don't own a gun and they have no idea how to handle one. Yes, there are gun safes and gun locks but that somewhat defeats the usefulness of the gun in the event of home invasion or burglary. Having lived in the sticks where I could fire my guns in the backyard at will, they are something that can be used and enjoyed. The more you handle them the more comfortable you are and the competent you become. For many suburban families, there is no place to shoot so the gun just sits unused waiting to be happened upon by a child / teenager or stolen.
I wonder how you guys explain the fact that unarmed liberal Whites have been retaking the inner cities even as the country keeps getting browner,
This is an excellent question but white liberals won't like what I think is the answer: big city governments wisely adopt policies to carve out safe zones for net tax payors.
while the well-armed conservative Whites are hiding in the rural areas with their gold coins and canned food stockpiles, waiting for the system to collapse
Because it will. When you have to prop up secondary markets by printing money and buying your own debt with it, the clock is ticking. The financial centers of cities are dependent to a large extent on this continuous stream of new money.
The collapse need not be cataclysmic, but there will doubtless be a lot of social unrest and dislocation.
I wonder how you guys explain the fact that unarmed liberal Whites have been retaking the inner cities even as the country keeps getting browner, while the well-armed conservative Whites are hiding in the rural areas with their gold coins and canned food stockpiles, waiting for the system to collapse.
I wonder how you explain the fact that all the sodomites and boy-molesters vote dem.
it is a common argument to state that the Red States get more benefits than they pay in taxes, and the Blue States get less return than they pay in taxes. This is certainly true...
This tiresome stat gets trotted out all the time to beat Red States over the head. The reality is that it's simply an artifact of our massively progressive tax system.
The top 10% of earners pay about 70% of all Fed taxes. These high earners are largely concentrated into metro areas of Blue States. Therefore, Blue States "pay more" in taxes. This says nothing whatsoever about median payments (who really "pays more"), or breakout of payments by whites, NAMs, etc.
As commonly presented, this info-bite just lets you know that most really rich people live in blue states. As usual, Progs are using this stat in disingenuous ways.
People's politics are based on identity, not "interests," even if people could perceive them accurately. Liberals oppose guns for the same reason they oppose the death penalty and war. It's a way to think of oneself as non-violent and morally superior.
Sounds about right to me. Steve's "I'm much too privileged to worry about being shot" thing plays into this, too.
Remember this comment from "Urban Baby": "But how about the Midwest and Kentucky? Plenty of scary white people there. You seem really uninformed." Fools like the person who wrote that have no interest in being disabused of their ignorance. After all, finding out that the whites from the Midwest or Kentucky weren't so scary would deprive them of one of this favorite rhetorical tools: sneering at red-state whites.
Yeah, and having too many facts at your command contradicting their delusions is the fast track to being labelled a RACIST!!! Who else would care enough to have all the facts?
Actually law enforcement generally supports gun control. The rest of the political class generally does not challenge law enforcement.
The officer class, you mean; the ones with jobs of political import. The rank and file are pro 2A. Sorta like how the politically-important clergy were philo-Semitic in the middle ages, but the rank and file were anti-Semitic.
Nah. The street cops are generally pro-gun. The political police chiefs are generally anti-gun.
Well, I at least typed it before I read your reply. :)
Sounds like paranoid legends ultimately derived from "hate America" novels by Philip Roth.
Which is ultimately derived from the roughly eon-old animus Jews have against the rural and lower classes.
Rather, it seems to be some psychological desire to, well, emasculate everyone. They truly seem to like the idea of a very pacified population under central control.
I was just saying the same thing yesterday on a 2A news thread; that the eunuchs and geldings want everyone gelded, because there's nothing a eunuch hates more than being the odd man out.
Given so much urban black violence against whites is physical in nature--as blacks are tougher--as when Yglesias got beat up, it doesn't make sense for white liberals to get rid of guns. Liberals call for gun control/ban because they are dupes of the liberal Jewish elites who want to take guns away from white gentiles.
After Newtown, Jews Lead Renewed Push on Guns
Has anybody checked out what Ezra Klein, Chris Matthews, Cokie Roberts are up to?
If you have any evidence you should take it to the proper authorities.
Perspective said:
"I can provide links for individual state data if requested."
Yes, please.
Given so much urban black violence against whites is physical in nature--as blacks are tougher--as when Yglesias got beat up
The creepers on this website with the black fantasies love to make this argument, but you would think you could have picked a better anecdote. Yglesias is an archetypal emasculated beta liberal male. Plus he's hobbit-sized.
99% of news accounts of black-on-white crime show an armed criminal preying on the unarmed, or a case where the attackers greatly outnumber the victims (the source of the old southern saying "six on one, that's [african-american] fun"). It's a reflection of thuggery, not toughness, but that doesn't fit with anon's sexual fantasies.
"The creepers on this website with the black fantasies love to make this argument, but you would think you could have picked a better anecdote. Yglesias is an archetypal emasculated beta liberal male."
I spent so much time in integrated neighborhoods that I have no illusions about the differences among races. Indeed, what got me into what is called HBD was not intelligence differences but physical differences.
Everything I saw in school, on the streets, in businesses, in public places, and heard from everyone else confirms the fact that blacks are better and tougher fighters than whites. It's no contest.
And it's not just about beta-males. Alpha black males will destroy alpha white males; indeed, alpha whites are betas compared to black alphas. Indeed, even lots of black betas can beat up white alphas. What goes by 'geek' among blacks could pass for stud among whites.
Go back to your castefootball fantasies. I think HBD's community emphasis on intelligence misses the boat. Intelligence is a factor with Jews. Higher Jewish intelligence means power over whites. But when it comes to blacks, lower black intelligence isn't the problem since it ensures white advantage. I mean, do we want blacks to be as smart or smarter than whites?
No, the problem with blacks is they are tougher. Just ask George Zimmerman. Just ask Brock Lesnar as he got his ass whupped by Overeem.
That should be the main focus of HBD. Once that is established, it justified gun ownership and white flight.
"50 years ago, Adam Lanza would have just shot himself."
This is probably true, but not for the reasons you contend. Adam Lanza was very familiar with shooting, his mother took him to the range regularly.
A few differences between then and now:
1. Charles Whitman not in national news until 1966. Have to dig to find the idea from other places - not in public conscious.
2. No FPS games to provide desensitization training to shooting human beings, and also the idea of shooting them in the first place.
3. No overabundance of information. No internet. Much harder to be antisocial to the same extent as it is today. Also, no internet and wikipedia to research who had the biggest mass murder tallies and the steps they took.
4. Moral guidance harder to escape, due to the prevalence of church attendance.
5. Potentially, anti-psychotics not commonly prescribed.
50 years ago, Adam Lanza would have just shot himself.
Oh, BS. Adam Lanza was insane. A true one in a million type. He wasn't shaped by society or any of that other nonsense. He was a bona fide crazy. You cannot engineer society to eliminate the one-in-a-million crazy dude. Come on.
the problem with blacks is they are tougher
nah, just more violent.
I was able to find this link(http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/stats_at-a_glance/state_statistics.html) from the CDC. But it only has the homicide rate for youth, broken down by race and ethnicity, for those aged 10 to 24.
Interestingly, the CDC has another link of homicide for whites (1950-64) by state on pg 29 of this report:http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_20/sr20_006acc.pdf
Very strange that data that existed 50 years a go is now difficult to come by.
"Everything I saw in school, on the streets, in businesses, in public places, and heard from everyone else confirms the fact that blacks are better and tougher fighters than whites. It's no contest."
The question is how much of this is psychological. Mestizos are certainly not physically superior to whites but seem to pretty much hold their own in black-Hispanic integrated neighborhoods. It would be an interesting experiment to import a large number of a white population not known to be infected by liberalism (e.g., Ukrainians) and give them sec. 8 housing in a major US urban area. In the 1980s I knew some very scary old Ukies in Chicago who had fought in the Galician Division, but I'm sure their grandkids are today pretty much standard SWPL.
I think there are some illusions here about how you actually go about being violent.
What do you call 6 people beating up one person?
Tactics.
No idea who Brock Lesnar or Overeem are, but this is pretty much how it's been done from the beginning of time. This stuff about dueling and one on one is sport, or some kind of social thing.
I just don't follow the whole context of what you are saying. I don't think it makes any sense, really. If you don't believe me, just do some reading or pay attention to crime reports. Ask a cop, I'm sure they'll tell you the same thing.
That's the thing about movies and tv, they give people a lot of dumb ideas about a lot of stuff. Real life isn't about one guy fighting 10 guys in a choreographed fight, with lots of leg kicks.
Real life is 10 guys beating the one guy up in a hurry with axe handles or baseball bats.
Now, recently white people seem to have forgotten this, but I'm positive they will figure it out in a hurry if it ever becomes a big issue.
Something seems wrong about the "be agnostic about Hispanics" conclusion.
Thus the "taken alone" qualification. Presumably a correlation with states' Hispanic % versus homicide rate is thrown off by Hispanics often living in states with lots of highly homicidal blacks (the northeast, florida) but also often in states with lots of non-homicidal whites and few blacks (the southwest and west coast). Unz would therefore really appreciate this data.
[QUOTE]United states 2007
White non-hispanic: 2.7
Black non-hispanic: 23.1
American Indian: 7.8
Hispanic: 7.6
Asian/Pacific Islander: 2.4
Other: 3.43
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6001a14.htm#tab1[/QUOTE]
I bet Pacific Islanders like Tongans and Samoans commit the overwhelming majority of the murders in the Asian community. Most Pacific Islanders in the U.S live in low income ghetto neighborhoods. Most of them are not middle class.
I know because I live in the Bay Area. These Islanders on average tend to be less educated and less financially successful than mainland Asians.
Even though Islanders are lumped in with mainland Asians in the U.S census, most mainland Asians I have met do not consider Islanders to be part of the same race as them. The same way most European Americans do not consider Arabs to be part of the same race as them, even though the U.S census lumps them both together.
Arabs are like Pacific Islanders, most people do not see Arabs as part of the White race, just like most people do not see Pacific Islanders as part of the Oriental race.
Diane Feinstein is going after assault weapons again. She can see no reason for such weapons to be in the hands of civilians. Let me give her a reason right here.
This is a New Year. It may be the year the race riots start in Oakland. It may be the year when gangs of black invade the white neighborhoods. A six shooter will not be sufficient. You will need a semi-automatic weapon with quick change magazines.
Oakland in the next few years is in a unique position. It has been 145 years since the Hayward Fault last slipped. It has had a record of slipping very 140 years. Most seismologists think it is the major fault most likely to slip in the near future.
Oakland has three roughly equal population components - whites, blacks and browns. Most of the whites live on solid rock in the hills. Many, maybe even most, of the poorest blacks live on bay fill.
In the 1989 San Francisco quake the most severe damage was in the Marina - a very prosperous neighborhood. The land under the Marina was bay fill too. There was subsidence and soil liquefaction. Houses tilted, cracked open, and burned. Water mains broke, electricity was off as were phones.
But that was an upper class neighborhood. The people were well ordered and had other resources. In Oakland the subsidence will be under the homes of thousands of unemployed welfare recipients.
If the emergency response isn't any better than it was after Katrina or Sandy those people will be in real trouble. They will get hungry and move out. There's a good chance they will move up into the white residential neighborhoods which will have experienced much less quake damage.
To those on the ground it will look like an race invasion. It will look even more so to the circling media helicopters.
Albertosaurus
"Even the two middle-aged lesbians who own my girlfriend's favorite bed & breakfast are strapped."
In more ways than one, I reckon.
Hagel? Worth fighting Obama on it just to fight him. No one respects a push-over, and if you're weak you have to fight twice as hard. Reps are weak. But the real problem won't be Sec of Defense but Obama, who is weak and appeasement driven on Iran (get ready for $150 a barrel oil which Iran says is the min price).
As far as Black physical ability, in "Where Black Rules White" by Heskith Pritchard, available for free from Google Books and written in 1901, Pritchard notes physical abuse and punishment survived by Black guys that would have killed Whites. You can see this in the dominance Blacks have in boxing, MMA, and football. Physical dominance is not everything, and Black guys don't do well in the cold and wet, a Northern European specialty. But HBD is supposed to be about recognizing the truth, and the truth is on average Black guys are far superior to White guys in physical dominance, i.e. strength, speed, size, height. That is again, not everything, and is overvalued today because of the welfare state.
As far as disarming America goes, its an elite thing pushed by elites who are by and large hereditary members of Sam Francis's Managerial Class.
Pat says:
If the emergency response isn't any better than it was after Katrina or Sandy those people will be in real trouble. They will get hungry and move out. There's a good chance they will move up into the white residential neighborhoods which will have experienced much less quake damage.
Feinstein does not care about any of the residents of Oakland. So, from her perspective, what matters more is that people like her do not end up shot by people with guns of any sort.
Just ask Brock Lesnar as he got his ass whupped by Overeem.
That should be the main focus of HBD.
I don't think it's such a good idea to tak the advice of someone who'd come up with an anecdote this dumb.
Mexico's murder rates have a floor at about 10, and go significantly above that (above 50 for a 20 year period). The USA's stayed at 10 or under for the whole 20th century.
That's a misleading way to characterize the Mexican data. Looking at it surely what jumps out is the massive long-term decline as the country rapidly developed. The decline leveled out with the onset of economic difficulties from the late 70s through the early 90s and then resumed its decline as economic conditions once again improved. The recent drug violence is something of an anomaly.
Very high homicide rates are not characteristic of only non-white societies. Europe is estimated to have had homicide rates of 30-40 per 100,000 from about the years 1300-1500, at which point a long-term decline commenced, until most western European countries were under 2/100k by the 1880s. Spain had an average homicide rate of, repectively, 9, 7 and 8 for the three decades from 1880 to 1910, but an average rate of 1 or less than one every decade since 1950. (Data from Manuel Eisner, "Modernity Strikes Back?") So while the determination of contemporary researchers to ignore race is certainly frustrating (among other adjectives) it's a huge mistake to conclude that race is the variable that explains all.
it's a huge mistake to conclude that race is the variable that explains all.
Well, of course. Genes explain all! In particular, the percentage of alleles in each population (race) that predispose individuals to violence and this murder.
Of course, conflict takes many forms, not just violence.
I calculated 'white' homicide rates per state based on the FBI Supplementary Homicide Reports 2009 data. The resulting 'white' rate is actually the non-black, non-asian and non-native american rate, meaning white+hispanic+mixed race. Because it's likely true that hispanics are more criminal than whites (at present anyway) this significantly skews the real white rate in states with large hispanic populations. I found that in attempting to adjust for greater hispanic criminality, the white rate isn't much affected by this adjustment in states with low (<10%) hispanic populations, so the aggregated data isn't as problematic as it may seem.
The FBI Supp Report data contains a racial category called 'uknown.' I assumed the racial breakdown of offenders in this category followed the racial breakdown for offenders whose race was known. This seems a safe assumption but at least one anomaly arose: it left DC's white rate above 6 even with the unlikely assumption that DC's hispanics commit murder at a rate of 20. With the more reasonable assumption that the hispanic rate is around 10 the white rate is close to 9. Are DC whites really that homocidal? It seems very doubtful.
The following are the black and 'unadjusted white' (ie white+hispanic+mixed) rates for all fifty states according to my calculations: AL 17.8, 2.6; AZ 25.7, 4.4; AR 18.8, 3.1; CA 20.1, 4.3; CO 18.1, 2.5; CT 11.4, 2.0; DE 15.8, 1.8; DC 42.5, 9.1; GA 12.3, 2.8; ID 0 1.3; IL 18.5, 1.2; IN 25.2, 2.3; IA 11.5, 1.0; KS 21.3, 2.8; KY 16.1, 3.1; LA 26.8, 3.3; ME 14.3 1.7; MD 18.4, 3.2; MA 11.8, 1.8; MI 30.9; 2.0; MN 13.6,0.9; MS 10.6, 2.3; MO 26.5, 3.9; MT 0, 2.3; NE 9.4, 2.2; NV 17.3, 5.2; NH 0, 0.8; NJ 16, 1.7; 14.3, 1.8; NC 13.2, 2.5; ND 0, 1.2; OH 21.4, 1.7; OK 29.6, 3.9; OR 9.9, 2.0; PA 28.6, 2.8; RI 28.1, 1.3; SC 14.3, 3.2; SD 21.7, 1.3; TN 25.2, 3.2; TX 16.2, 4.0; UT 18.9, 1.0; VE 21.2, 1.1; VA 13.7, 2.3; WA 13.7, 2.1; WV 22.3, 3.4; WI 23.3, 1.1; WY 20.0, 1.4; AK 10.5, 3.0; HI 10.5, 1.4.
There is generally good agreement between the black offender rate calculated above with the black victim rate in the vpo document linked to in these comments. This suggests the calculated 'white' rate is generally accurate too (aside from any calculation errors I may have made). Nevertheless, this data can only be a guide, not a definitive statement of what occurred 'on the ground.'
Silver,
Thanks.
Is this Homicide Victimization or Homicide Offending rate?
Those are the rates for offenders.
"No, the problem with blacks is they are tougher. Just ask George Zimmerman."
Well, Zimmerman is alive.
Couple of corrections: the NY data isn't labled, but follows NJ above (14.3, 1.8); 'the vpo document' should read vpc document (found here).
I'm not sure how the FBI daa treats black hispanics. Unlike the average mestizo there is next to nothing 'white' about them. My guess is they are treated as black in northeast states. I suspect their homicide rates are lower than those of African-Americans (in large part because they are not as culturally antagonistic as African-Americans), so this would have the effect of holding down the black rate in NJ and NY.
Well, of course. Genes explain all! In particular, the percentage of alleles in each population (race) that predispose individuals to violence and this murder.
Of course, conflict takes many forms, not just violence.
If there were some way to hold all else equal I might grant you that race could be the variable that explains all. But I don't see how it's even theoretically possible to hold all else equal and have anything that looks remotely like a human society. So it seems we're going to be left with race as an important variable but only one among others.
As for conflict, certainly, but thi is a conversation specifically about violence, not generic conflict.
"pat said...
Diane Feinstein is going after assault weapons again. She can see no reason for such weapons to be in the hands of civilians. Let me give her a reason right here."
Pat - your points are all very good, as usual. But I would like to make a wider point.
I can see no reason why Diane Feinstein should be a Senator. I know that the people of California voted for her - just as the people of Alabama mostly want the AR-15 with normal sized magazines (20-30 rounds, which is normal for an AR-15) to be legal. Given that, I think that the people of California should be overruled - she should NOT be allowed to be a Senator. The appropriate federal regulations to enable this should be drawn up now.
Demand a plan!
"sunbeam said...
This is certainly true, but I wonder how the numbers would look if analyzed with the percent of the population that is NAM included."
I wonder how it would look if the killing-and-dying part of military service were factored in. When it comes to stopping bullets, the red-state part of the nation does more than its fair share. Yes, I know that our wars are not in the national interest. However, with a Democrat now in the White House, the liberals pretend that they are. So how about it?
"..blacks are tougher..just ask Brock Lesnar who got his ass whupped by Overeem..."
I'll remove a couple of feet of intestine from your stomach, kick you there and then we'll see how tough you are.
Blacks are more violent by nature and louder too. They usually have less to lose and whites know that in any inter-racial conflict the law and courts will be against them. This all works to create a myth of black "toughness". Go to any strongman contest. 95% of the guys are white.
As long as you are doing this, it is a common argument to state that the Red States get more benefits than they pay in taxes, and the Blue States get less return than they pay in taxes.
This is certainly true....
No, it is not, for too many reasons to recount.
..blacks are tougher..
There is no evidence of this. In fact, the evidence seems to go the other way. Witness Dwyane Wade being wheeled off the court because of a shoulder injury.
What we do know is that Blacks are more present-oriented, which is a nicer way of saying they value the continuation of human life less. Who wants to fight over a pool table or basketball court with somebody who thinks it's worth his and your life?
So while the determination of contemporary researchers to ignore race is certainly frustrating (among other adjectives) it's a huge mistake to conclude that race is the variable that explains all.
It doesn't explain everything, but it certainly can provide a lower limit. Surely having a modern police force acts to reduce the number of murders, especially in a higher IQ state where the police force is competent and more individuals contemplating murder weigh up the odds of getting caught and decide against it.
That blacks commit murders like they are living in Africa when they are living in the USA - one of the world's most affluent countries, with modern police forces etc. suggests that there is not much improvement possible for them in this regard. Much like head start and nutrition, there is only so much environment can do.
If this high lower limit of homicides (and presumably, other crime) acts to overwhelm police forces, causes neighborly white people to move out (white flight), which in turn lowers property prices because no one likes to live in a high crime area... why should we (white people) have to bear the costs of that? A halving of your house price is a huge financial burden to overcome. Why are we not entitled to protection via enforceable restrictive covenants?
I'm a little late to this, but see Steven Pinker's latest book starting at around page 94.
Who wants to fight over a pool table or basketball court with somebody who thinks it's worth his and your life?
This is what I've been trying to drum into my nephew.
You can see this in the dominance Blacks have in boxing, MMA, and football. Physical dominance is not everything, and Black guys don't do well in the cold and wet, a Northern European specialty. But HBD is supposed to be about recognizing the truth, and the truth is on average Black guys are far superior to White guys in physical dominance, i.e. strength, speed, size, height.
You spread untruths under the aegis of recognizing the truth, cute. You go from boxing, MMA, and football, three arenas which have nothing whatsoever to do with racial averages, to racial averages. And you make statements you simply cannot back up about racial averages. And you make fuzzy statements about what is "far superior" to what, staying well within the confines of the wordsmith, and far away from the hard data of the quant.
I suppose that's your idea of "recognizing the truth," but my idea of recognizing the truth is pointing out that your idea of intellectual rigor fails on its merits.
It's a pain in the ass to violate someone's 4th amendment rights when they are packing.
If this made sense to anyone here, I'd like to know.
"Where Black Rules White" by Heskith Pritchard
Could he have been the Quentin Tarantino of his day?
Anon 1:36
6 No violent movies like Charlies Angels, Salt, The Bourne (Something), Mr and Mrs Smith, Terminator 2 etc. to inspire him.
" They usually have less to lose and whites know that in any inter-racial conflict the law and courts will be against them."
Thanks Bro, I needed the laugh today.
Alpha black males will destroy white females;
6' 5" Asheed Rasheed Masheed Nasheed Bobino proved this when he fought a 5' 1" woman in Austin Texas but 5' 9" Roger Puerta got the better of him.
I have the solution for the Dianne Feinswines and the Lautenbergs and all that. We need a third House of congress that you get elected to whether or not you want to run for it. Senators and Supreme Court Justices and Reps that have too much seniority get put on the ballot in every state or district except their own and if elected can not go back to any other federal office. Short of assassination it's the only way to get these old dirt bags out.
This third house would essentially have no power, of course.
Hard to believe people are still banging the black physical dominance canard. Blacks are dominant in exactly three sports: football, basketball and track. And it's not even clear their dominance in football and basketball is best explained by HBD reality. A lot whites no doubt steer clear of basketball even if they like the game. They might like the game but, quite understandably, not the culture around it, the hootin', hollering, shuck-jiving and high-fiving.
It's no surprise a good number of the best white basketball players are from Europe. They don't have it banged into their heads from birth that basketball is a "black" game, and there is no ghetto culture around the game to drive off normal men.
The Caste Football site does a good job documenting bias against white males in football from high school to the NFL.
As is often the case in matters racial, the truth is the exact opposite. Whites are the best athletes in the world. Except for sprinting and distance running, Whites are well represented in the highest echelons of every sport.
- Lew
Hmmm I really don't think sports are very important in the larger scheme of things.
But I will say that the big American Sports only stress a limited amount of athleticism.
Endurance, particularly with the mass substituting, really doesn't matter.
340 pound nose guards are kind of a hothouse flower of athleticism. Heck it's only been about 90 years since Notre Dame had a first team all american guard that weighed 170 pounds.
As for the rest of it, football is kind of degenerate, for want of a better word in the physical attributes needed to play certain positions. Cornerbacks need to be able to run so fast and cover so much ground for so many seconds, or they can't do their job. In a lot of ways it's pretty much a matter of testing people till one comes along that meets the parameters.
But someone that can jump through those hoops isn't necessarily the best athlete around. They are probably the best at the limited subset of physical skills demanded of them. But that isn't all of the world.
Just wanted to add, there have been some really, really fast white football players the past 50 years.
To throw some names out Doug Donley, Joe Don Looney, some more I've forgotten.
Joe Don Looney was particularly freakish from a standpoint of size, speed, and strength. The Sugarland Express, Ken Hall (if memory serves) was smaller, but the same kind of guy athletically.
Interestingly Herschel Walker had a much better collegiate career than Looney had, but he was very similar in a lot of ways. Nowhere near as good a pro as a college player. But the size/speed comparison between Looney and Walker is kind of interesting.
The weird thing about them, is they all had straight ahead speed, with almost no ability to change directions.
Seriously you almost have to go back to a guy like Hugh McIlhenny to find a white guy with moves.
I also think a big issue with this, is that for the most part white people have quit playing sports, except for a few fairly common exceptions like the families that encourage and enable activities like baseball, gymnastics, and swimming. But white kids that play something for the sheer joy of it, are kind of something that doesn't exist anymore unless you count the X-sports.
It [race] doesn't explain everything,
Your mouth is agreeing that it doesn't explain everything, but the rest of your response seems to assume I've claimed that race can explain nothing, which is why you walk me through basics I'm already very familiar with. So just to clear that up: yes, it's important. I'll be the first to agree it's very important.
but it certainly can provide a lower limit
That's probably true, but I'm sure it's necessarily a notable feature. What I mean is that if that lower limit is low enough, then despite there still possibly being a massive difference in lower limits, it's really not going to matter that much. For example, if the white lower limit is 0.1 per 100,000 and the black lower limit is ten times higher, it's still only 1 per 100,000. It's like someone selling you a computer on the basis that it performs certain everyday functions in .000001 seconds while your old computer takes .0001 seconds. The new one would be 100 times faster but as far as your concerned the difference is meaningless.
Surely having a modern police force acts to reduce the number of murders, especially in a higher IQ state where the police force is competent and more individuals contemplating murder weigh up the odds of getting caught and decide against it.
All very true, but it seems to assume that the quality of policing is the biggest factor and I'm just not sure that it is.
That blacks commit murders like they are living in Africa when they are living in the USA - one of the world's most affluent countries, with modern police forces etc. suggests that there is not much improvement possible for them in this regard. Much like head start and nutrition, there is only so much environment can do.
And here you're assuming that policing quality is already at the maximum possible level.
If this high lower limit of homicides (and presumably, other crime) acts to overwhelm police forces, causes neighborly white people to move out (white flight), which in turn lowers property prices because no one likes to live in a high crime area... why should we (white people) have to bear the costs of that? A halving of your house price is a huge financial burden to overcome. Why are we not entitled to protection via enforceable restrictive covenants?
Sure, it's an important factor. But I hope you don't think crime is the only thing that justifies positive white identity. Crime could become a completely negligible factor and positie white identity would still make a world of sense.
I calculated Brazilian homicide rates by race based on data from mapadaviolencia.org
From 2002 to 2010 the homicide victim rate for whites declined from about 20 per 100,000 to 15.
From 2002 to 2010 the homicide rate for 'blacks'('pardo' and 'preto' census categories combined) rose from 29 to 37.
Data by Brazilian state in open office format here
An interesting fact that pops out at me is that whites in northeastern states where they are a minority (of about 25-35%) typically experience homicide rates of under 10, while in southern states where they are sizeable majorities they experience homicide rates twice this or more.
Note that it's possible that racial miscategorization of victims affects these statistics, though if it does, there's no reason I can think of that it doesn't do so uniformally.
Blacks are dominant in exactly three sports: football, basketball and track.
An excellent choice of sports which to dominate. Football is by far the most important professional sport in the country, with the NFL being the world's richest and most successful sports league. Basketball is another big professional sport, with the NBA ranking third or fourth behind the NFL, MLB, and arguably NASCAR.
Football and basketball are completely dominant on the college level, in fact they're the only college sports that anyone cares about, and for its part track is one of the premiere Olympic sports.
Whiskey said...
Hagel? Worth fighting Obama on it just to fight him. No one respects a push-over, and if you're weak you have to fight twice as hard. Reps are weak. But the real problem won't be Sec of Defense but Obama, who is weak and appeasement driven on Iran (get ready for $150 a barrel oil which Iran says is the min price).
Neocon Agitprop 101, may as well have quoted the Israeli hasbaras.
This makes me like Hagel even more.
Obviously the best way to get the oilprice down is to stop playing war games with Iran, and to stop doing what Israel demands.
all of you crying and whining about wanting special protection from the state like restrictive covenants to protect you from the big bad "NAMs" (why not just use the n-word since that's what you're thinking) proves that HBD is complete crap. If you people really were superior you'd be able to survive on your own. You're nothing but collectivist takers. White flight is a sickness, and a byproduct of the Housing Act of 1934. Fleeing is for cowards
"Just like those Hummers those yokels used to drive."
I'm pretty sure most Hummers were bought by rich, college educated assholes in the greater NYC and LA metropolitan areas.
Also, blacks stopped dominating boxing a long time ago.
"
That's probably true, but I'm sure it's necessarily a notable feature. What I mean is that if that lower limit is low enough, then despite there still possibly being a massive difference in lower limits, it's really not going to matter that much. For example, if the white lower limit is 0.1 per 100,000 and the black lower limit is ten times higher, it's still only 1 per 100,000. It's like someone selling you a computer on the basis that it performs certain everyday functions in .000001 seconds while your old computer takes .0001 seconds. The new one would be 100 times faster but as far as your concerned the difference is meaningless."
From what I can see, the black lower limit is somewhere well above 10 everywhere. Of course, this would vary by ethnicity just as the white one appears to. The white lower limit is near an order of magnitude lower. The real situation is like comparing a 486 with a Pentium several years later. If Windows 95 is a civilization, one is capable of running it, the other isn't.
From what I can see, the black lower limit is somewhere well above 10 everywhere.
But your opinion is based on no more than taking a snapshot of view of what's going on at the present point in time and concluding (probably influenced by hard biological determinist views, just a hunch) that the rate (or the lower limit) you're observing is fixed for all time.
Anyway, it doesn't seem that your opinion about the present correct either.
Based on this report from 2007-08 to 2009-10 75% of homicide victims in England and Wales were white, 12% black, 8% asian. Based on the annual homicides in England and Wales in those years and a black percentage of England of 3.5%, and allowing for the reported fact that 88% of whites, 78% of blacks and 60% were killed by members of the same race, we can compute the black rate over those three years as follows:
53 million population of England * 3.4% = 1,800,000 blacks.
Homicides in 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10: 750+650+620=2020
Black victims: 2020 * 12% = 242, of whom 242*.78=190 killed by blacks.
White victims: 2020 * 75%= 1515, of whom 1515*.12=182 killed by non-whites, which we will assume were killed by blacks.
Asian victims: 2020*8%=162, of whom 162*.4=65 were kill by non-asians, which we will assume were killed by blacks.
190+182+65=437
437/3 years=146 people killed by blacks each year
146/1,800,000*100,000= a black homicide rate of 8.1
This would be an upper limit for these years because not all of the whites and asians killed by non-whites and non-asians would have been killed by black. Some asians would have killed whites and some whites, asians. If the breakdown of these killings follows that of victims then the black rate declines to about 6.
Of course, this would vary by ethnicity just as the white one appears to.
You mean like the way the Scots are congenitally more murderous than Irishmen? (Hell, if we go back five or six years, Sicilians too.)
Attempted here.
White Murder Rates by State, 1960.
Thanks to the commenter named Perspective above for the link.
Post a Comment