Saturday, September 30, 2017

White collar crime is a black thing

A few observations while picking through the 2016 FBI crime statistics follow. AmRen has written most everything there is to be written about past iterations of these reports. Additionally, I'm hesitant to delve too deeply because of the infinitely frustrating fact that non-Hispanic whites are not broken down into separate offender categories.

It's infinitely frustrating because the FBI has the data--it presents arrest rates by race and by Hispanic ethnicity or lack thereof, but it separates the two. The bureau could easily combine them together and present the categories as non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, Hispanic, non-Hispanic Asian etc as the census often does, but the bureau chooses not to. It is of course not done because doing so would reveal the true white-black arrest rate gap to be even wider than it appears as presented here.

What a murderer looks like
- Black men aged 20-24 comprised over 14% of all arrests for murders last year*. Black men in that age range make up less than half of one percent of the total population. That means they are over 3,450% as likely to be arrested for murder as the rest of the population is.

Prudent people will have heightened awareness in the presence of men, in the presence of blacks, and in the presence of those aged 20-24--and they will be especially wary when all three characteristics come together in a single person or group of people.

- Blacks are 163% and 237% more likely than whites to be arrested for fraud and embezzlement, respectively.

All crime skews significantly black, including "white collar" crimes. They don't skew as heavily black as violent crimes do because for one thing in the case of embezzlement they require being in a position of some authority in the first place, and secondly because white collar crimes require more forward planning and deferred gratification than violent crimes do.

And by "all crime skews" black, it is meant that indeed every type of crime skews black. Of the 28 different categories of crime the FBI statistics track, blacks make up a larger percentage of arrestees in all 28 of them than they comprise as a share of the total population.

"Model minority" gets a new meaning
- There are two categories of crime where Asians pull their criminal weight. With gambling, they are exactly as likely as non-Asians to be arrested. With prostitution, they are 6% more likely to be.

- American Indians (feather, not dot) are 53% more likely than the rest of the population to be arrested for crime in general.

The crime they are most disproportionately likely to be arrested for relative to everyone else? Drunkenness, of course (533% more likely than the rest).

The crime they are second-most likely to be arrested for relative to the population at large? Liquor law violations, for which they are 266% more likely to be arrested.

Stereotypes exist because they're generally true.

* A few assumptions were made in the calculation. The age distribution came from the 2010 census, the total population figures from 2016 estimates. The FBI statistics break arrests out by race and by age but not by both race and age together, so it was assumed that the male/female distribution in murder arrests among blacks aged 20-24 was the same as for the total arrestee population.

Finally, murders in which the race of the suspect is unknown were assumed to follow the racial distribution of known suspects. This last assumption almost certainly underestimates the actual number of murders committed by the group in question here--black men aged 20-24--as murders involving blacks have lower clearance rates than those involving non-blacks do


The Z Blog said...

The numbers are astonishing. When you expand out the age range, the numbers don't get better. Across the board, blacks are significantly more violent than other groups.

Peaceful separation now, or less peaceful apartheid later.

Audacious Epigone said...

Peaceful separation now, or less peaceful apartheid later.

To hear this fleshed out in more detail, go here.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

Before Daily Stormer gets taken down again, I think this is a good read. We're so close to the point where everyone agrees that the United States not only isn't united but is unable to unite ever again, at least with the current demographic setup anyway.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

Sorry for doubleposting but this is why the endgame of the globalist elites is to eliminate the concept of a nation or a culture. The irreconcilable differences between the world's cultures is a feature, not a bug. It is impossible to have an American, an African, a Saudi, an Indian, and a Chinese all in one block, living harmoniously. They can all be friendly to each other, yes, but different cultures weigh much more stronger. It will never work as a permanent arrangement.

For the past several decades, we've tried exporting liberal secular democracy to theocracies and unsurprisingly it has failed every time. Also for the past several decades, we've tried importing people with theocratic backgrounds to mold them into liberal secular democrat bugmen...again failing every time. Globalists just think it needs to be doubled down. Just keep flooding the borders with "New Americans" who are only in it for the free stuff and to have accommodations like flush toilets and drinkable water.

Not that the globalists will ever admit defeat but now the first world has over 100 million hostile non-natives who aren't going to go back to their third world hellholes without a fight. We can't remove the taco and the kebab forcibly as the will just isn't there (yet). I think the solution is to just start coming up with incentives for voluntary deportations. Cut deals with their home nations to start accepting their own people back. Cut off the gibs. Strengthen the requirements on what it means to be a refugee. Stick to defunding sanctuary cities. Block any more H1B visas. That should be enough to get several million of them to go. Then we might have to start taking more drastic measures to get the rest out. That might sound mean but simple economics is going to weigh out here: we can't keep borrowing money forever to pay for people who hate us.

Audacious Epigone said...

Random Dude,

With Operation Wetback, it's reported that for every one illegal forcibly deported, 7-8 left of their own volition. The same sort of push-pull dynamic could work today that well, maybe even better with the right incentives. But the window for that is closing. When we get to a point of electoral majority-minority (which will take a little longer than actual population majority-minority since whites vote at higher rates than Asians and Hispanics), there'll be no possibility repatriation anymore.

TWS said...

Lots of feather not dot Indians live on reservations that are not courts of record. Meaning that unless the feds step in which they hate to do crime essentially goes unreported.

The res has levels of crime most simply cannot believe.

Audacious Epigone said...


It's hard to get a handle on what percentage of American Indians living inside the boundaries of the US are covered, but I have to assume that's correct.

Feryl said...

The people who wistfully think of the 50's or 60's, from an ethnic standpoint, are basically delusional. The Sun-belt was lightly populated before WW2, has always had a decent number of blacks/Asians/Hispanics, and it's rather naive to think that the combo of mostly white G.I. transplants and young white Boomers of the mid-century represents some kind of workable norm that we can easily reproduce. The Sun-belt attracts elites who have no desire to maintain heavily native-born demographics, as that diminishes cheap labor; btw, even in the 40's-60's, SW farms had lots of Mexican labor (the Bracero program), such that Mexican-Americans railed against the labor policies of agribusiness.

Sweaty sun labor becomes unpalatable to whites once you reach a certain heat index and go below a certain latitude. Kansas became a pre-civil war flashpoint, as slavers and abolitionists heavily contested the state. Ultimately, the state was North of location and cold of winter enough that it stayed in the Union. The mosquito filled low-land South is the worst place in the country for whites to live in, and no surprise, it's always had tons of blacks. In times past, elites from the South Central US would travel North on the Mississippi in the summer, all the way up to Minnesota, to get relief. Nowadays snowbirds are more common, but pre-air conditioning, the reverse happened used to happen too.

Personally, what I find troubling is Northern states like Washington state losing over 15% of their white population in just over 20 years. These states used to be primarily white, with a fair number of blacks in urban areas and a few downscale inner suburbs.

Feryl said...

"First employed by political analyst Kevin Phillips in his 1969 book The Emerging Republican Majority,[6] the term "Sun Belt" became synonymous with the southern third of the nation in the early 1970s. In this period, economic and political prominence shifted from the Midwest and Northeast to the South and West. Factors such as the warmer climate, the migration of workers from Mexico, and a boom in the agriculture industry allowed the southern third of the United States to grow economically. The climate spurred not only agricultural growth, but also the migration of many retirees to retirement communities in the region, especially in Florida and Arizona."

Industries such as aerospace, defense, and oil boomed in the Sun Belt as companies took advantage of the low involvement of labor unions in the region (due to more recent industrialization, 1930s–1950s) and the proximity of military installations that were major consumers of their products. The oil industry helped propel states such as Texas and Louisiana forward, and tourism grew in Florida and Southern California."

Yup......The GOP once counted on the Sun-belt to represent a brighter future. A lack of urban ethnic machines, little organized labor, comfortable retirees, yuppie transplants, Oilers, farmers, and cold warriors was supposed to form an indomitable GOP stronghold which would gradually surpass the well-developed and historically important Northeastern quadrant of America. This "dream" became a nightmare shortly after the cold war faded in the late 80's and the '86 amnesty was passed. Not to mention sky-high birth rates among blacks and Mexicans in the 60's-80's created a demographic ticking time bomb. You gotta get a wry chuckle out of The Stupid Party directly mentioning cheap Mexican labor as a reason to be optimistic (muh GDP!).

Feryl said...

The US could function reasonably well if:

- The Pac. NW, New England, and the Midwest remained at least 80% white.

- The Mountain states, the Mid-Atlantic and upper South stayed 60-70% white.

- The Sun-belt stayed 50-60% white.

Now of course, there's ample draw backs to having Mexicans or blacks instead of more whites in these regions. All the same, white-Americans are gifted enough to off-set the dysfunctions of other groups, and besides, what white person really wants to be doing stoop labor in Miami or Houston? Again, the unique mid-Century phenomena of large numbers of white transplants having large numbers of kids in the Sun-belt is something that was exceptional and not likely to be repeated. The best realistic outcome we can have is that white flakes and yuppies can go down their and soak up the sun if they wish, but they'll be damned (and I'll be damned) if these regions are ever 70% white or more again. White Boomers were a huge co-hort, and it just so happens that many of them had G.I. parents who decided to start their families in the Sun-belt. But that doesn't mean it makes sense for pasty Nordic and Celtic Americans to have their skin be roasted off while just 20-30% of the other inhabitants are darker skinned.

Audacious Epigone said...


Thanks for that. It is easy to fall into an immediacy bias trap. At what point did it start to dawn on the vast middle that the Southwest was drifting blue?

We are presumably in an electorally transitional period now, but still in the early stages. Will another election or two of the upper Midwest going red do it?

Feryl said...

Reg16 variable, whites only, all GSS surveys

Lost Generation (1,145), born 1886-1905
0: FOREIGN 7.9
3: E. NOR. CENTRAL 23.3
4: W. NOR. CENTRAL 15.4
6: E. SOU. CENTRAL 7.9
7: W. SOU. CENTRAL 6.4
9: PACIFIC 3.9

GIs (7,020), 1906-1925
0: FOREIGN 3.7
3: E. NOR. CENTRAL 22.2
4: W. NOR. CENTRAL 11.8
6: E. SOU. CENTRAL 7.6
7: W. SOU. CENTRAL 7.3
9: PACIFIC 5.2

Silents (12,780), 1926-1945:
0: FOREIGN 5.0
3: E. NOR. CENTRAL 21.1
4: W. NOR. CENTRAL 9.0
6: E. SOU. CENTRAL 6.8
7: W. SOU. CENTRAL 7.9
9: PACIFIC 8.7

Boomers (19,953), 1946-1965
0: FOREIGN 4.2
3: E. NOR. CENTRAL 21.4
4: W. NOR. CENTRAL 8.0
6: E. SOU. CENTRAL 5.8
7: W. SOU. CENTRAL 8.0
9: PACIFIC 11.7

Gen X (8,616), 1966-1985
0: FOREIGN 5.5
3: E. NOR. CENTRAL 19.3
4: W. NOR. CENTRAL 8.0
6: E. SOU. CENTRAL 5.8
7: W. SOU. CENTRAL 8.6
9: PACIFIC 12.8

Millennials (1,238), 1986-1998
0: FOREIGN 3.0
3: E. NOR. CENTRAL 20.3
4: W. NOR. CENTRAL 5.1
6: E. SOU. CENTRAL 4.2
7: W. SOU. CENTRAL 9.1
9: PACIFIC 15.3

The West coast is pretty irrelevant before Silents, and isn't a big factor until the Boomers and subsequent generations. The Mountain states are irrelevant before Gen X, and even to this day aren't a big deal. Oh, and see that EN Central region? Great job, you GOP dumbfucks. Doing nothing since the late 70's to appeal to a sizable number of people in a well-populated region (aside from Reagan in the general, and only very recently has the GOP done better here on a local level), and this region going back 6 generations has been important.

I wish I could tackle Florida and really the Sun belt state by state in general, but alas, the GSS doesn't have any way of breaking things down by state.

The GOP used to count on developing and cold war friendly states in the Western US, but these are states just aren't very culturally conservative (exception: Utah), are often trending browner, blacker, and yellower, and we're just not anywhere near the cold war climate that used to bind the highly militarized Southern and Western states together. Also, as the Western states have become more developed, the libertarian conservatism of previous generations is largely absent in people born over the last 40-50 years.

The GOP in the 50's-70's largely turned their back on Northeastern blue collar people, assuming that rich Easterners, Western libertarians, and cold warriors would form a permanent coalition. Who needs Eric the pipe fitter from Green Bay, or Dino the plumber from Philly?

Audacious Epigone said...


Thanks for that.

1 in 25 Losts grew up on the West coast while 1 in 6 millennials did. That's astonishing.

Anonymous said...

You will have nothing and keep nothing if you don't fight for it, defend it.
The problem with all the proposed solutions above is our educated have become cowards, and our brave have justly become contemptous of thought itself.

Now we will be ruled by our own. Expect them to come from a much rougher hewn wood then Gentleman Trump.

And then still if you don't fight you'll have nothing...


Feryl said...

The Mid-Atlantic is the heart of the swamp, and with so many blacks, foreigners, and striver bug-men, it comes as no surprise that fewer and fewer whites are being born there.

Big Black James Bold said...

Good, the fewer trailer park white trash the better

Feryl said...

"Now we will be ruled by our own. Expect them to come from a much rougher hewn wood then Gentleman Trump.

And then still if you don't fight you'll have nothing..."

Beginning with Boomers, there's been less and less common ground within each generation, and that includes in-group racial solidarity. X-ers and Millennials can't see eye to eye on so many issues, particularly ones pertaining to identity. What's more, later generations are much less trusting and have been raised before the lash of PC their whole lives. Even though PC ostensibly didn't get terrible until the 90's, the reality is that liberal Boomers had bullied race realists into submission by the late 70's. These issues were "settled" by 1980, and lord knows older generations couldn't have cared less what younger generations thought after 1980. Leftist Boomers won out, and have marginalized anyone who doesn't play along for the last 37 years.

It's not clear just how many X-ers or Millennials are shit lords since they've gone along to get along because, well, they want to have a peaceful life. Among confidantes, or when tipsy, or when surrounded by co-ethnics with a blue collar upbringing, a decent number of youngish people will admit to having reservations about diversity. It's akin to how in the 1950's, Americans who were commie symps would never in a million years admit it to such to anyone but a few confidantes.

Anonymous said...

Is the mass shooting in Vegas a "black thing" too? Watch out for those black males.

Salden said...

>Is the mass shooting in Vegas a "black thing" too? Watch out for those black males.

Blacks and other non-Whites are much more represented in mass shootings for their population than Whites

White countries with significantly less Black, Mestizo, and MENA populations have among them the lowest firearm homicides per capita

Blacks are far more represented in serial killing than Whites for their population:

Tell us when you plan to move to Detroit.

Salden said...

>Good, the fewer trailer park white trash the better

I know you're a shill LARPing as a Negro, but those trailer park White trash commit less violent crime and use less gibs than Negroes when controlling for population.

Audacious Epigone said...


Game. Set. Match.

Well done, sir.

Anonymous said...

For those want to peacefully separate, it is fairly easy to buy a ticket to Australia. There is a lower murder rate there as well. The murder rate was 20 times higher than the contemporary United States a few hundred years ago in all white England. Why do you think the murder rate there is lower five hundred years later even while the white population percentage there has declined? A thought: there is a very high incarceration rate of violent people in the United States of reproductive age. Perhaps our future will be less violent than you fear.
--An Inflammatory Commentator