TOS Blog: Daily Commentary from an Objectivist Perspective

Startling Homicide Statistics among Blacks (and the Cause)

The blogger Publius makes an extraordinary claim: If in America “black men [were] murdered at the same rate as everyone else, the overall [homicide] rate would drop to 1.9 out of 100,000 population. That would give the United States the 147th highest murder rate in the world.” This raises two questions: Is that true, and, if so, what does it mean?

Let’s examine the statistics. According to the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC’s) report “Deaths: Preliminary Data for 2011,” there were 15,953 deaths by homicide that year, for a rate of 5.1 per 100,000 population. In its “Crime in the United States: 2011,” the FBI gives a lower estimate for the number of murder victims: 12,664. Of these victims, fully half—6,329—were black. And yet blacks comprised 13.1 percent of the population in 2011, according to the Census Bureau. (These figures square with those reported by the Wall Street Journal last August.)

Do Publius’s claims about the murder rate pan out? The Census Bureau lists a U.S. population of 311,591,917 for 2011. The number of homicides reported by the CDC, 15,953, divided by the total population, yields the rate of 5.1 per 100,000. If we assume that the FBI’s ratio holds for the larger number of homicides reported by the CDC, and take the number of nonblack homicides to nonblack population, we get 7,980 divided by 270,773,376, or 2.9 per 100,000 population. I’m not sure how Publius calculated his figures for the murder rate, but they seem to be low. And even the rate of 2.9 per 100,000—which is considerably below the national rate—is above that of Canada and western European nations.

The startling number is that of black homicide victims. Even taking the FBI’s lower figures, the number of black victims (6,329) divided by the total U.S. black population (40,818,541), yields a murder rate of 15.5 per 100,000 population. And if we assume that the FBI’s ratio holds for the larger number of homicides reported by the CDC, that indicates the murder rate among blacks is 7,973 divided by 40,818,541, or 19.5 per 100,000 population. That is horrific (although still below the murder rates in the likes of Mexico, Brazil, and Uganda).

So what’s the source of the problem? As Publius notes, the problem is not among the black population as a whole; rather, it is due to a “small sub-culture that glorifies violence and lives and dies by the gun.” It is the gang culture, characterized by widespread criminality, tribalistic warfare, through-the-roof unemployment, extremely high rates of out-of-wedlock births (72.1 percent among blacks in 2010), widespread welfare dependency, and nihilistic art typified by “gangster rap.”

Of course the left will cry “racism” at anyone stating such facts, but such cries are ridiculous. Although skin color and genetic makeup obviously have no causal connection to this problem, a tragically large number of blacks in America (and many whites and Hispanics as well) choose the gang “lifestyle” or at least the broader culture that supports it. And leftist intellectuals feed this culture by promoting anti-value “art,” moral relativism, the entitlement mentality, and welfare dependency—all funded by forced wealth transfers.

The horrifying homicide rate among black Americans is the most visible and tragic symptom of a much deeper cultural disease. And the cure is a philosophy of reason, individual responsibility, productive work, and life-oriented values.

Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard.


Image: Wikimedia Commons

Posted in: Welfare and Subsidies

Comments are welcome so long as they are civil.
  • Rena Wetherelt

    The Great Society pushed o the American people by leftists in the sixties was predicted by reasoned people to be the destruction of the American family. This is the legacy of that federal program, paying women to have babies out of wedlock.

  • Corinne Holeva

    What might end gang lifestyle is two parent households who actively enforce rules in their home and care about where their children are and what they are doing. I live in Harlem and sitting in Mcdonalds one evening around 10pm I noticed a group of 5or six black boys who could not have been older than 11 or 12 years old. They were discussing what party they were going to next. I looked at another adult sitting next to me who shrugged his shoulders and said, “Sad isn’t it? Their parents don’t care.”

  • Anonymous

    My grandfather summed up the problem with black culture. At the time I thought it was racist but it was the exact opposite. He told me every black man he had ever met was a fine upstanding person until they got in a group of other black people then they changed.

    What is the cause of this? I do not know.I have guesses like if you are told you don’t fit into the world by your parents,teachers and society (see the Doll Test with black children) maybe you feel more comfortable when you at least share the same skin colot?

  • Martin Lundqvist

    “extremely high rates of out-of-wedlock births (72.1 percent among blacks in 2010)”

    How is this line of argument even relevant? Marriage, as a contract between two people, is a very restrictive concept with far-reaching legal implications. Couples should not be scorned for having children while opting out from an expansive legal burden. Besides, being married or not has absolutely no correlation between how good someone is at parenting, loving/caring for their children or responsibility.

    Also, wouldn’t it make more sense to look at the percentage of black *murderers* instead of black victims? I am sure KKK has done its share of killing blacks…

  • Anonymous

    Martin, If you care to read the Wall Street Journal article linked in the piece, you will discover that the large majority of black homicide victims are killed by black perpetrators. Specifically, “black victims were killed by blacks 94% of the time” in the period considered by the article. Regarding out-of-wedlock births, my argument is not that every out-of wedlock birth is problematic. As you indicate, many unmarried couples and single parents are wonderful parents. But do you seriously believe that anywhere close to the 72.1 percent of out-of-wedlock births involve cases of wonderful parenting? Note that this figure has skyrocketed in the last few decades; in 1965 the rate was 24 percent among blacks—see -Ari

  • Martin Lundqvist

    “If you care to read the Wall Street Journal article linked in the piece…”

    I did not read it, because I do not have the required subscription to the WSJ in order to do so.

    “do you seriously believe that anywhere close to the 72.1 percent of out-of-wedlock births involve cases of wonderful parenting?”

    I did not say that. I only said that there is no correlation between marriage vs. parenting. Also, statistics can be deceiving.

  • John Pryce

    Actually there is, but it has little to do with bad parenting. One of the issues I’vebeen following is the correlation between single parenthood and gang membership. It is significantly higher than random, and there is at least a highly plausible causal connection: single mothers are often in the worst position to teach their sons how to be men.
    As Reagan noted, society is never more than one generation away from collapse, and young men growing up in desperate circumstances need an example of how to properly confront those circumstances. Lacking that, they are much more likely to turn to the barbarism of the modern street gang.
    What’s more, huge numbers of single mothers are not the result of domestic abuse (and even among those who are, a startling number of them have admitted that they deliberately provoked their husbands [who were not originally violent men] into it so that they could get better divorce terms. This does not include women who lie about it and get away with it. Widows, of course, do NOT count as single mothers.
    Feminism is streaked through with cultural Marxism, and many of these single mothers decide to remain single following the feminist party line, believing what these cultural Marxists tell them. Its not hard to imagine what the son of a feminist single mother is going to grow up with.
    Single motherhood is also highly correlated with violent criminals currently serving time, both here and in Britain. Granted, social issues such as this are not good for proving causal connections, but consideration of historical perspectives (such as the mention of different crime rates among these populations in time periods where the rate of single motherhood was lower) are illuminating.

  • Ilene Skeen

    Why don’t you make the point that the prevalent morality of our age is altruism? Altruism pits the strong against the week. People who are disadvantaged have more incentive to take up arms against society because they have the least to lose. The main victim of altruism and statist policies is people’s self-respect.

    The more government programs try to “help” people, the more ingrained are the perceived disadvantages. Single women with children can get much more from the government even if their relationship with a man is stable and loving. The government is thus encouraging out-of-wedlock births. Putting all this aside, the main point is that marriage rates, skin color may be clues or symptoms but they are neither principles nor the disease.

    Altruism as a morality depends on mysticism as a metaphysics and subjectivism as an epistemology: “I wish it, and therefore, God will provide, or the government will make people provide for me. I’ll prove that I’m not nothing. I’ll get a gun and make them pay attention to me.” As it said in Porgy & Bess, “When you ain’t got nothing, you’ve got nothing to lose.”

  • Martin Lundqvist

    “Granted, social issues such as this are not good for proving causal connections…”

    This is exactly what “no corellation” means. Unless there is causality, there is only speculation.

  • john gold

    Why do you say genetics obviously have no role in this problem? Blacks have higher crime rates every where in the world and lower iqs, which corrolates with crime. Genetics is the most reasonable explanation.

  • Anonymous

    In the beginning, the KKK were democrats. But the men found the hoods and robes were slowing them down, so they jettisoned them and got elected to office. Now, they’re much more effective in achieving their goals.

  • Martin Lundqvist

    Genetics would imply an across-the-board behavior that simply, despite what advocates of racism claim, does not exist. I have known plenty of black people who have not done anything to justify the condemnation that bigots shower upon them.

    It all boils down to culture. An example: does perpetrating the Holocaust in 1945 mean Germans are inherently brutal? Of course not. Back then the majority espoused nazism – now they do not. Good ideas foster good morals and thus good culture. Bad ideas (such as racism) do the opposite.

  • Daniel Morgan

    The flaw in your otherwise interesting writing, is that NO ONE is taking up arms for their own betterment. I think that would imply a level of thought that simply does not exist.

  • Daniel Morgan

    The fact is that a child born to a family with a mom and a dad has a much better chance than a child born otherwise.

  • Daniel Morgan

    I would argue there is a direct link between marriage and parenting. And the reasoning is is clear if you take a moment to consider.

  • Ilene Skeen

    “NO ONE is taking up arms for their own betterment.” What is your evidence for this? Do you have a special meaning for “betterment.” Self defense doesn’t count? What is your evidence? I am learning to shoot, so I am one exception that I know, personally.

  • James Phillips

    I don’t know about that. Blacks lead the nation in EVERY area of crime. Including white collar crimes commited by people from “successful” upbringings.

  • James Phillips

    How are they “disadvantaged”? They’re like the most over represented group of people on the planet. There is no better time to BE black in this country than right now.

  • James Phillips

    I think the problem with racism is the double standard we embrace. You can be a very vocal racist, and even commit crimes against those of another race without consequence, unless you’re of European descent. People can’t even define racism properly let alone identify it.

  • Ilene Skeen

    Genetic science has shown conclusively that there are inherited characteristics, but there are no races except the human race. The real problem is multiculturalism growing out of the morality of altruism.

    Multiculturalists believe in the absolute equality of all cultures. If a practice or belief is something many people chose and even force others to do, according to multiculturalism, that is fine, as long as most people of the culture accept it. The individual counts for nothing in multiculturalism. In multiculturalism, the head hunter society, the hunter-gather society, the Muslim enslavement of women are considered okay and equal to the society which respects individual rights and objective law.

    The truth is that underlying the multiculturalism movement is a hatred of Western Civilization, capitalism, and freedom.

    Since most cultures, including our own, are captives of altruism, most people have no objective standard by which to judge behavior.

    You should also remember that statistical correlation is not proof. It is evidence of a relationship. To demonstrate proof, one must apply a standard of judgement which is not self-referential to the point at issue. Blacks are treated differently by law in this country (eg. quotas for employment, education). These quotas have a horrible effect on people’s self-respect. There is absolutely no possible evidence that such quotas somehow can translate to genetic differences, but there is a lot of evidence that people who buy into the equality of all cultures excuse all kinds of vile actions in the name of their group having “rights.”

  • Ilene Skeen

    You would be right if tribalism were a value. Blacks are the target, recipients and beneficiaries of the full force of the contradictions of altruism. Wouldn’t wish that on my worst enemy.

    Any black in search of understanding individual rights, self-reliance and legitimate self-respect is faced with tribal as well as religious and social collectivism.

    Institutionalized whim worshiping is a big impediment to understanding A=A.

  • Morning Call

    Rena got it right. Without all the welfare spending started by the Great Society, this dysfunctional black underclass would never have developed. Therefore, welfare spending has directly caused a high murder rate. People won’t admit this for various reasons, but it is as clear as day.

  • TyS

    The reason you got higher numbers than Publius is because you are only taking into account the male murder rate; you need to average it with the female rate

  • Anonymous

    A nuclear family has proven to lead to a more productive childhood.

  • h

    Your statement is entirely false. Please do some research on how IQ tests are administered and on the nature of race neutral testing. Also, can you even remotely support your statement WITHOUT mentioning class and poverty instead of skin color. You are promoting absolute hogwash as if it were fact. Please.

  • h

    ummm, excuse me? Please provide any data you have on this one. Women commit more white collar crimes than men, but, last I checked, black people do not commit more white collar crimes.

  • Garet Jax

    Sounds like the problem is solving itself.

  • Ado Egbdf

    Very good presentation of some very bad stats.

  • David

    Ghana 15.7, ivory coast 56,nigeria 12.2, cameroon 19.7,namibie 17.2, angola 19, avg 23, european americans 2, african american roughly 20% european so 19 is what you would expect…

  • David

    15 is perfectly normal too,, why comparing to other races like whites?

  • Jorge Recarey

    The rise of the welfare state in the 1960s contributed greatly to the demise of the black family as a stable institution. The
    birth rate among African Americans today is 73%, three times higher
    than it was prior to the War on Poverty. Children raised in fatherless
    homes are far more likely to grow up poor and to eventually engage in
    criminal behavior, than their peers who are raised in two-parent homes.
    In 2010, blacks (approximately 13% of the U.S. population) accounted
    for 48.7% of all arrests for homicide, 31.8% of arrests for forcible
    rape, 33.5% of arrests for aggravated assault, and 55% of arrests for robbery. Also as of 2010, the black poverty rate was 27.4%
    (about 3 times higher than the white rate), meaning that 11.5 million blacks in the U.S. were living in poverty.

    When President Lyndon Johnson in 1964 launched the so-called War on
    Poverty, which enacted an unprecedented amount of antipoverty
    legislation and added many new layers to the American welfare state, he
    explained that his objective was to reduce dependency, “break the cycle
    of poverty,” and make “taxpayers out of tax eaters.” Johnson further
    claimed that his programs would bring to an end the “conditions that
    breed despair and violence,” those being “ignorance, discrimination,
    slums, poverty, disease, not enough jobs.” Of particular concern to
    Johnson was the disproportionately high rate of black poverty. In a
    famous June 1965 speech, the president suggested
    that the problems plaguing black Americans could not be solved by self-help: “You do not take a person who, for years, has been
    by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line in a race
    and then say, ‘you are free to compete with all the
    others,’” said Johnson.

    Thus began an unprecedented commitment of federal funds to a wide
    range of measures aimed at redistributing wealth in the United
    States.[1] From 1965 to 2008, nearly $16 trillion
    of taxpayer money (in constant 2008 dollars) was spent on
    means-tested welfare programs for the poor.

    The economic milieu in which the War on Poverty arose is noteworthy.
    As of 1965, the number of Americans living below the official poverty
    line had been declining continuously since the beginning of the decade
    and was only about half of what it had been fifteen years earlier.
    Between 1950 and 1965, the proportion of people whose earnings put them
    below the overty
    level, had decreased by more than 30%. The black
    poverty rate had been cut nearly in half between 1940 and 1960. In
    various skilled trades during the period of 1936-59, the incomes of
    blacks relative to whites had more than doubled. Further, the
    representation of blacks in professional and other
    occupations grew more quickly during the five years preceding the launch
    of the War on Poverty than during the five years thereafter.

    Despite these trends, the welfare state expanded dramatically after
    LBJ’s statement. Between the mid-Sixties and the mid-Seventies, the
    dollar value of public housing quintupled and the amount spent on food
    stamps rose more than tenfold. From 1965 to 1969, government-provided
    benefits increased by a factor of 8; by 1974 such benefits were an
    astounding 20 times higher than they had been in 1965. Also as of 1974,
    federal spending on social-welfare programs amounted to 16% of America’s
    Gross National Product, a far cry from the 8% figure of
    1960. By 1977 the number of people receiving public assistance had more than doubled since 1960.

    The most devastating by-product of the mushrooming welfare state was the corrosive effect it had (along with powerful cultural
    such as the feminist and Black Power movements) on American family
    life, particularly in the black community.
 As provisions in welfare
    laws offered ever-increasing economic incentives for shunning marriage
    and avoiding the formation of two-parent families, illegitimacy rates
    rose dramatically.

    For the next few decades, means-tested welfare programs
    such as food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, day care, and
    Assistance to Needy Families penalized marriage. A mother generally
    received far more money from welfare if she was single rather than
    married. Once she took a husband, her benefits were instantly reduced by
    roughly 10 to 20 percent. As a
    Cato Institute study noted, welfare
    programs for the poor incentivize the very behaviors that are most
    likely to perpetuate poverty.[2] Another Cato report observes:

    “Of course women do not get pregnant just to get welfare
    benefits…. But, by removing the economic consequences of
    out-of-wedlock birth, welfare has removed a major incentive to avoid
    such pregnancies. A teenager looking around at her friends and neighbors
    is liable to see several who have given birth out-of- wedlock. When she
    sees that they have suffered few visible consequences … she is less
    inclined to modify her own behavior to prevent pregnancy…. Current
    welfare policies seem to be designed with an appalling lack of concern
    for their impact on out-of-wedlock births. Indeed, Medicaid programs in
    11 states actually provide infertility treatments to single women on

    The marriage penalties that are embedded in welfare
    programs can be particularly severe if a woman on public assistance weds
    a man who is employed in a low-paying job. As a
    report puts it: “When a couple’s income nears the limits prescribed by
    Medicaid, a few extra dollars in income cause thousands of dollars in
    benefits to be lost. What all of this means is that the two most
    important routes out of poverty —marriage and work—are heavily taxed
    under the current U.S. system.”[3]

    The aforementioned report adds
    “such a system encourages surreptitious cohabitation,” where “many
    low-income parents will cohabit without reporting it to the government
    so that their benefits won’t be cut.” These couples “avoid marriage
    because marriage would result in a substantial loss of income for the

    A 2011 study conducted jointly by the Institute for American Values’
    Center for Marriage and Families and the University of Virginia’s
    National Marriage Project suggests that “the rise of cohabiting
    households with children is the largest unrecognized threat to the
    quality and stability of children’s family lives.” The researchers
    conclude that cohabiting relationships are highly prone to instability,
    and that children in such homes are consequently less likely to thrive,
    more likely to be abused, and more prone to suffering “serious emotional

    William Galston, President Bill Clinton’s Deputy Assistant to the
    President for Domestic Affairs, estimated that the welfare system, with
    its economic disincentives to marriage, was responsible for at least 15%
    to 20% of the family disintegration in the United States. Libertarian
    scholar Charles Murray has placed the figure at somewhere around 50%. By
    Murray’s reckoning, the growth and increased liberalization of the
    “welfare complex” have eroded the traditional ethos of working-class
    communities that once held people who worked at low-wage jobs, and men
    who married the
    mothers of their children, in much higher esteem than unwed parents who became wards of the state.

    The phenomenon that Murray describes has been in clear evidence for
    decades. Consider, for instance, a Harlem-based initiative in the 1980s
    known as Project Redirection, whose aim was to persuade young women who
    had already borne one child
    out of wedlock to avoid repeating that mistake. According to the
    Development Research Corporation’s evaluation report on this project:
    “[M]any [beneficiaries] were beginning to view getting their own welfare
    grants as the next stage in their careers…. [I]t became apparent that
    some participants’ requests for separate grants and independent
    households were too often a sign of manipulation by boyfriends, in whose
    interest it was to have a girlfriend on welfare with an apartment of
    her own.”

    The results of welfare policies discouraging marriage and family were
    dramatic, as out-of-wedlock birthrates skyrocketed among all
    demographic groups in the U.S., but most notably African Americans. In
    the mid-1960s, the out-of-wedlock birth rate was scarcely 3% for whites,
    7.7% for Americans overall, and 24.5% among blacks. By 1976, those
    figures had risen to nearly
    10% for whites, 24.7% for Americans as a whole, and 50.3%
    blacks in particular. In 1987, for the first time in the history of any
    American racial or ethnic group, the birth rate for unmarried
    black women surpassed that for married
    black women. Today the illegitimacy rates stand at 41%
    for the nation overall, and 73% for African Americans specifically.[4]

    Welfare not only increases illegitimacy and poverty in the short term, but it inflicts long-lasting, even permanent, handicaps
    on children who are raised in welfare-dependent homes. Dr. June
    and Anne Hill, comparing children who were identical in terms of such
    social and economic factors as race, family structure, neighborhood,
    family income, and mothers’ IQ and education, found that the more years a
    child spent on welfare, the lower the child’s IQ. A similar study by
    Mary Corcoran and Roger Gordon of the University of Michigan concluded
    that the more welfare income a family received while a boy was growing
    up, the lower the boy’s earnings as an adult.

    The devastating societal consequences of family breakdown cannot be
    overstated. Father-absent families—black and white alike—generally
    occupy the bottom rung of America’s economic ladder. According to the
    U.S Census, in 2008 the poverty rate for single parents with children
    was 35.6%; the rate for married couples with children was 6.4%. For
    white families in particular, the corresponding two-parent and
    single-parent poverty rates were 21.7% and 3.1%; for Hispanics, the
    figures were 37.5% and 12.8%; and for blacks, 35.3% and 6.9%. According
    to Robert
    Rector, senior research fellow with the Heritage Foundation, “the
    absence of marriage increases the frequency of child poverty 700
    and thus constitutes the single most reliable predictor of a
    self-perpetuating underclass. Articulating a similar theme many years
    ago, Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Nothing is so much needed as a
    secure family life for a people to pull themselves out of poverty.”

    Children in single-parent households are burdened not only with
    economic, but also profound social and psychological, disadvantages. As
    a Heritage Foundation analysis notes, youngsters raised by single
    parents, as compared to those
    who grow up in intact married homes,
    are more likely to be physically abused; to be treated for emotional and
    behavioral disorders; to smoke, drink, and use drugs; to perform poorly
    in school; to be suspended or expelled from school; to drop
    out of
    high school; to behave aggressively and violently; to be arrested for a
    juvenile crime; to serve jail time before age 30; and
    to go on to experience poverty as adults. According to
    the National Fatherhood Initiative, 60% of rapists, 72% of adolescent murderers, and 70% of long-term prison
    inmates are men who grew up in fatherless homes. With
    regard to girls in particular, those raised by single mothers are
    more than twice as likely to give birth out-of-wedlock, thereby perpetuating the cycle of poverty for yet another generation.

    The calamitous breakdown of the black family is a comparatively
    recent phenomenon, coinciding precisely with the rise of the welfare
    state. Throughout the epoch of slavery and into the early decades of the
    twentieth century, most black children grew up in two-parent
 Post-Civil War studies revealed that most black couples
    in their forties had been together for at least twenty years. In
    southern urban areas around 1880, nearly three-fourths of black
    households were husband-or father-present; in southern rural settings,
    the figure approached 86%. As of 1940, the illegitimacy rate among
    blacks nationwide was approximately
    15%—scarcely one-fifth of the
    current figure.
 As late as 1950, black women were more likely to be
    married than white women, and only 9% of black families with children
    were headed by a single parent.

    During the nine decades between the Emancipation Proclamation and the
    1950s, the black family remained a strong, stable institution. Its
    cataclysmic destruction was subsequently set in motion by such policies
    as the anti-marriage incentives that are built into the welfare system
    have served only to exacerbate the problem. As George Mason University
    professor Walter E. Williams puts it: “The welfare state has done to
    black Americans what slavery couldn’t do, what Jim Crow couldn’t do,
    what the harshest racism couldn’t do. And that is to destroy the black
    family.” Hoover Institution Fellow Thomas Sowell concurs:
    “The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and
    discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare
    state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.”

    Just as welfare policies discourage marriage and the formation of
    stable families, they also discourage the development of a healthy work
    ethic. As Heritage Foundation scholar Michael
    Franc noted in 2012:
    “[T]he necessity of phasing out [welfare] benefits as incomes rise
    brings a serious moral hazard. In many cases, economists have
    calculated, welfare recipients who enter the work force or receive pay
    raises lose a dollar or more of benefits for each additional dollar they
    earn. The system makes fools of those who work hard.” In testimony on
    Capitol Hill, Rep. Geoff Davis (R-Kentucky) concurred that although
    federal welfare programs “are designed to alleviate poverty while
    promoting work,” collectively they have “an unintended side effect of
    discouraging harder work and higher earnings.” “The more benefits the
    government provides,” he said, “the stronger the disincentive to work.”
    Yet another Capitol Hill witness, Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wisconsin)—herself a
    former welfare recipient—acknowledged in her oral testimony: “I once
    had a job and begged my supervisor not to give me a 50-cents-an-hour
    raise lest I lose Title 20 day care.” The same work disincentive came
    into play when Moore contemplated the health coverage she was receiving
    through Medicaid. “I would want to work if in fact I didn’t risk losing
    Medicaid,” she said.

  • David Elmore

    Publius is, thankfully, stating the obvious. All American adults have been watching and reading about the inordinate number of murders, robberies and assaults committed by a black subculture for decades now. It’s nothing new. What’s new is stating it in public for what it is. Such murderous cultures do not simply pop into existence ex nihilo. Like all things human, they come from ideas. In this case, the irrationality of altruism (government mandated, to boot), in which the hatred for humans and the human mind (by both liberals and conservatives) manifests itself in a slave mentality that demands that producers are criminals and non-producers are victims who “deserve” the producers’ wealth. The producers allegedly have to sacrifice because we are all allegedly sacrificial (unworthy) animals who do not deserve our own rewards for our hard work and we allegedly take advantage of others, so we have to “give back.” The recipients of the stolen wealth have zero self-esteem (as robbers) and simply self-destruct while simultaneously visiting their self-destruction upon those they have the greatest contempt for: those of a similar irrational mindset in their own communities.

  • Anonymous

    Separate Hispanics from the White and watch the murder rate drop.

  • Marcus O’Marcus

    I know I’m late to the party, but I just want to point something out. Genetic studies have actually found a significant amount of divergence amongst specific “populations”, which is the PC term they use when they mean the colloquial “race”. Neven Sesdarick has a good paper on the issue:

    The real issue is a lack of understanding of how much genetics dictates behavior. It need not be universal for there to be a racial component, merely a pre-disposition towards behaviors that increase criminality. Heritable traits that have been documented to have variance amongst races that also correlate towards criminality are things like testosterone levels(blacks have 3-17% more testosterone than whites on average and Asians have 3-17% less on average), territoriality, intelligence and I’m sure there are others. All that said, at best genetics only tell half the story and cultural factors are far more conducive to creating positive actions.

  • Ilene Skeen

    You are late and you assume the point at issue. You are asserting that people are unthinking products of their hormones and that choice (free will) is weak. This is certainly true for those who accept the premise that they are unthinking products of their hormones. They are taught that by mystics and collectivists worldwide.

  • Marcus O’Marcus

    I am asserting no such thing, merely that race is a very real thing that has very real consequences. Not determinant, but certainly a factor. You are taking my point to the extreme, I actually specifically mentioned that genes only tell at best half the story. Genetics also play an important role on the cultural level, as well. To dismiss the difference as being a fabrication is ignoring reality and what genetic studies actually say.

  • wiseoldsnail

    ridiculous . poverty is the root cause … and poverty is a construct of rampant, unregulated capitalism, by which the extreme few reap billions in profits at the expense of low paid workers … and jobs to americans by outsourcing jobs by corporations … all for corporate profits

  • wiseoldsnail

    maybe their parents were at their third jobs, for all you know . making assumptions doesn’t fix things, does it?

    maybe their fathers were stopped & frisked so many times that the kids just don’t care any more … maybe fathers are illegally incarcerated for profit of prison owners …

    no matter, what are you doing to make it better? bitching on the interweb

  • wiseoldsnail

    omg did you really just equate feminism with marxism? you actually believe feminists allow themselves to be told what to do by marxism?

    look to the source : poverty, which is created by low wages and lack of jobs due to outsourcing for profit

    also, don’t forget stop & frisk … which not only literally extracts men from their families by criminalizing walking while black, but also infects young, black men with absolute disgust with the systemic racism they face every day

    but you’d be above it all, eh? if you were constantly called a thug for merely walking along in a hoodie … you wouldn’t rebel, eh?

  • wiseoldsnail

    argue all you want . arguing does not a causal connection make

  • John Pryce

    Betty Friedan, widely credited with being one of the first of the so-called Second Wave, was a Stalinist Marxist, who worked for many years as the editor of a Stalinist newsletter. She also lied extensively throughout ‘The Feminine Mystique’, as her husband revealed in interviews later: namely that she was never actually a housewife by any stretch, but rather worked for nearly the entire time she was married and lived in a mansion with numerous household servants.
    Numerous feminists who followed her were very much Marxists, often openly so (but even when they did so only in private, their writings were clearly Marxist in nature), and most of the policies advanced by feminists generally are Marxist in character.

    Secondly, feminism itself grew out of Marxism, and the narrative advanced by feminists proves this. Feminists generally advance the notion that the ‘patriarchy’ consists of an effort by men generally (not necessarily intentionally) to hoard power and oppress women for their own benefit, and of course it’s up to feminists to identify this oppression and fight it, and eventually overturn the dominion of men and establish a ‘fairer’ social order.

    This entire line of (completely invalid) reasoning is an exact parallel to the Marxist-proposed conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Feminist screeds against foundational concepts like personal achievement, objective standards, objectivity generally, and even logic itself abound. Marxism screeds against such things predate the feminist screeds by some decades.
    Feminist analysis of social orders throughout history are particularly illuminating in this regard, especially when they presume that men have always held all the power in any society; they come to this conclusion by looking only to formal positions and formal power, never even acknowledging the extent to which even powerful men might be influenced by their wives, rarely even acknowledging that powerful queens have existed in the so-called male Old World.
    There are certainly enough valid parallels between both feminist thinking AND writing with Marxist thinking and writing that the idea that the two are linked would be fully justified even if quite a few feminists did not openly identify as Marxists.

  • John Pryce

    Actually I have proposed several potential causal connections between these things. What I haven’t done is test them experimentally. This is often impossible with social issues if for no other reason than that you cannot morally treat individuals like lab animals.
    There are a few historical examples that could be used for comparison to provide further proof of a causal connection, such periods following the invasion of nations by foreign armies with a penchant for rape, thereby fathering significant numbers of bastard children. These can be compared with other time periods within the same nations, or in different ones, where the rate of illegitimacy was low.

  • John Pryce

    High rates of crime by young black men long preceded “stop and frisk”, that’s first. FBI interviews with crime victims reveal that a huge percentage of violent crimes are committed by young black men against victims of both sexes and all races – far out of proportion to their incident in the population. Claiming the police are racist for targeting young black men requires that you also believe that victims of violent crime are so racist that they will tell investigators that their attacker was black even if he wasn’t for the sole purpose of making black people look bad.

    Secondly, ’stop and frisk’ may or may not be a 4th Amendment violation, but it was itself a response to high numbers of gang members carrying illegal firearms concealed on their person, with the intent to use them to commit crimes. I am not, and I would imagine that most police are not, opposed to black men holding CCW permits and carrying firearms on their person for personal defense – indeed, I welcome new members of the CCW club of whatever race or sex. But carrying a firearm concealed on your person without a permit is a crime in most places.

    Thirdly muggers and other up-close-and-personal criminals often wear hoodies to make it more difficult for their victims to identify them to the police. Young men wearing hoodies – with the hood up no less – when the weather is warm looks very suspicious for that reason alone, especially if they are in a group statistically more likely to commit violent crimes in the first place. These young men may not like the suspicion that others place upon it, but I imagine Buddhists don’t like the fact that people associate the swastika with Nazis – which means they cannot walk around wearing their swastikas as they would like to. It really, really sucks when a fashion statement that you happen to like is associated with criminal behavior or with evil, but if it is, don’t be surprised when other people are suspicious of your character when you wear it.

    Thirdly poverty in places like the US is usually caused by poor personal choices. As evidence I submit the amount of money that people on welfare spend on luxuries like expensive shoes and consumer electronics rather than healthy food, investments, and better educational opportunities for their children. They are receiving money for free, and yet they don’t do the sort of things that a middle-class person down on his luck would do to get back on his feet.
    It may well be that they simply don’t know any better how to get out of poverty, but when you are on welfare and living paycheck to paycheck in a trailer or in the projects, your children should not have iPods or iPhones and should not be wearing jewelry, gold teeth, or Air Jordans. You should be doing at least some of your shopping at Goodwill and the Salvation Army.
    Luxuries are something you buy when you can afford them – I’ve only recently received my very first MP3 player as a gift; I never had the money to spare to buy one, so I didn’t. I did without. I spent my money on more important things.
    Probably the most significant cause of poverty is the inability to delay gratification, the inability to say “I really, really want that iPod/pair of shoes/bottle of whiskey, but I need to spend my money on rent and food. I’ll save a few dollars a week for a while and buy it when I can afford it.”

    Crime is not caused by poverty; most serial killers for example come from middle class or comfortable backgrounds, as do most Islamic terrorists (quite a few are actually very wealthy, Usama bin Laden for example). Nearly all forms of white-collar crime and fraud are committed by the middle class and the wealthy, too. Crime is the bane of the poor family, not an act of rebellion: criminals are almost definitively opportunists, and generally target the people who are most available and vulnerable rather than those who have more to take. This is why poor neighborhoods usually have large dogs, bars on the windows, shatterproof windows, fences (especially with barbed wire), and any other anti-crime features they can afford.

    And as for rebellion, I don’t see men like Thomas Sowell, Thurgood Marshall, Colin Powell, Alan West, Clarence Thomas, or Martin Luther King (for that matter) joining gangs and attacking people at random. I don’t see them graffiti-ing homes and businesses. I don’t see them wearing hoodies when they go out at night. I don’t see them going to the corner store to buy Watermelon Fruit Cocktail and Skittles so I can go meet a friend and mix them with coedine to make a street drug called “purple lean”; I certainly don’t see them having a conversation about doing so on Facebook only an hour before getting into a fistfight with a Hispanic neighborhood watchman, beating him into a sidewalk and grabbing at his gun when they notice it.
    I see them wearing polo shirts and suits. I see them getting jobs doing anything, at whatever pay, and working conscientiously to prove themselves to their bosses and either earn higher wages or else work experience they can take to their next job. I see them furiously pursuing whatever educational opportunities available to them, and making their own when none are in the offing. I see them living respectable lives and making something of themselves. I see them even becoming modestly wealthy. I see that in any violent incidents they are involved in, they are NOT the aggressor, even when they win the fight (which is usually).

    So if I were black, it’s thug culture I would be rebelling against. I would be the guy the police believed, not the one with gang tattoos and a rap sheet longer than I am tall. I’d be the one with gunpowder residue on my clothes because I had just been to the range, not because I had just mugged a guy and shot him. I’d be the guy who gets his drugs from a pharmacy rather than from a guy in the projects.
    In short, I’d be “acting white”, precisely because my life would be better if I did. And it would be better if I did whether I lived in a racist nation or not.

    I certainly wouldn’t join a Revolutionary Communist group, set bombs in public places to kill innocent people, and execute my prisoners by putting a tire filled with gasoline around their necks and lighting it on fire.

  • wiseoldsnail

    i’m not reading this book you wrote . stop & frisk is unconstitutional, not to mention has produced such a tiny few good results that it’s proven itself a stupid policy which costs not only money, but time that police could be using to actually protect people … something they’ve literally taken to court to prove they are not required to do

    police are idiot thugs … every police agency in amerikkka is a sub-gang to the nationwide gang known as BLUE

  • wiseoldsnail

    first of all, i actually don’t care what you think or say

    that said, you seem to believe that one woman created feminism out of thin air … and you also seem to believe that there is not a power structure which keeps particular ethnic groups and women in poverty

    wake up

  • John Pryce

    If you don’t care what I think or say, why did you choose to begin a conversation in the first place?
    I chose Friedan because I actually knew her story specifically, not because she was a lone example.
    And I find it interesting that you want to comment on what I said while simultaneously agreeing that you didn’t read what I said nor do you care what I said.