You haven't yet saved any bookmarks. To bookmark a post, just click .

Guns, guns, guns…We’re constantly told that Americans have a serious violent crime problem way out of proportion to the rest of the developed world, and that there must be something intrinsically savage in the American psyche causing all this death and destruction, inextricably intertwined with rural white males and their precious Second Amendment, a relic of another era when we didn’t have to worry about “assault weapons” like AR-15’s. Now the first part of that claim is actually accurate, but it doesn’t quite tell the whole story. America does have a violent crime problem, but the thousands of bodies piling up in Baltimore, St. Louis, Memphis, Chicago, and Detroit isn’t because of white males or marauding racist police officers. That, my good friends, is largely the province of a certain subset of our population who are far more likely than their white counterparts to commit criminal and violent acts. This group commits 52.5% of all homicides despite consisting of just 13% of the population (and of that 13%, it is mostly young males doing the killing, which amounts to maybe 2-3% of the US population). From Edwin S. Rubenstein’s indispensable Color of Crime (2016 Edition):

  • In 2013, of the approximately 660,000 crimes of interracial violence that involved blacks and whites, blacks were the perpetrators 85 percent of the time. This meant a black person was 27 times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa.
  • The overwhelming majority of black homicide victims (93 percent from 1980 to 2008) were killed by other blacks.
  • There are dramatic race differences in crime rates. Asians have the lowest rates, followed by whites, and then Hispanics. Blacks have notably high crime rates. This pattern holds true for virtually all crime categories and for virtually all age groups.
  • In 2013, a black was six times more likely than a non-black to commit murder, and 12 times more likely to murder someone of another race than to be murdered by someone of another race.
  • For the crime of “shooting”—defined as firing a bullet that hits someone—a black was 98.4 times more likely than a white to be arrested.
  • In 2014 in New York City, a black was 31 times more likely than a white to be arrested for murder. If New York City were all white, the murder rate would drop by 91 percent, the robbery rate by 81 percent, and the shootings rate by 97 percent. In 2014, almost two thirds of arrests for murder were of blacks.
  • In an all-white Chicago, murder would decline 90 percent, rape by 81 percent, and robbery by 90 percent. Blacks in Chicago are 23.8 times more likely to be arrested for murder than whites.
  • In Milwaukee in 2014 (the most recent year available), blacks were 12 times more likely to be murder suspects than whites.
  • In Pittsburgh in 2012 (the most recent year available), blacks were 26.6 times more likely than whites to be arrested for murder.
  • In California in 2013, blacks were 5.35 times more likely than whites to be arrested for violent crimes, and 4.24 times more likely to be arrested for property crimes.
  • High crime rates among blacks are not limited to the United States. Statistics released by the Metropolitan Police in London, England, show that in 2009-10 blacks accounted for 54 percent of arrests for street crimes, 59 percent for robbery, and 67 percent for gun crimes. Blacks accounted for just over 12 percent of London’s population of 7.5 million. Likewise, according to information that had to be sought through a freedom-of-information request, in 2002, blacks were 8.1 percent of the population of Toronto, Canada, but accounted for 27 percent of all charges for violent crimes.
  • Blacks comprise three percent of the U.K.’s population, but ten percent of its prison population.

For most crimes, blacks make up a larger percentage of reported offenders than they do of those arrested, so systemic bias is off the table. If anything, these figures downplay black criminality. In the article “Is There Evidence of Racial Disparity in Police Use of Deadly Force? Analyses of Officer-Involved Fatal Shootings in 2015–2016” by Joseph Cesario, David Johnson, and William Terrill (June 13, 2018):

When adjusting for crime, we find no systemic evidence of anti-black disparities in fatal shootings of unarmed citizens, or fatal shootings involving misidentification of harmless objects. Multiverse analyses showed only one significant anti-black disparity out of 144 possible tests. Exposure to police given crime rate differences likely accounts for the higher per capita rate of fatal police shootings for blacks.

Rampant criminality is very obviously not limited to blacks, as the assorted “brown races” of the world are also greatly over-represented in their “commitment” to deviance and criminal behavior (just look at the “cultural enrichment” happening in Europe where the “beleaguered migrants” of all stripes form the vanguard of violence, crime, and sexual assault; or at Australia where despite constituting just 3% of the population, Aborigines make up 28% of the prison population; or at Canada, where “indigenous peoples” make up 4.3% of the Great White North’s population, but account for 24.4% of the country’s overall prison population), and though young black men especially seem awfully keen to exterminate each other, Latin Americans are giving them a run for their self-genocide money of late. Despite accounting for just 8% of the world’s population, Latin Americans are responsible for 38% of the world’s murders.

White males, contrary to the media narrative, are actually underrepresented in murders, mass shootings, serial killings, and other violent crimes, even in white collar crimes—in fact all crimes—except for DUIs. The black per capita murder rate in the United States (10.5 per 100,000) is on par with Papua New Guinea and Zimbabwe, and just below Uganda and Zambia, placing it squarely in the top quarter of all nations globally. The white per capita murder rate in the United States (1.5 per 100,000) is similar to that of Hungary, Romania, and Finland, in the bottom quarter of all nations globally.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) has an endowment of $75 million dollars whereas the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has an endowment of almost twice that at $144 million, and we shouldn’t forget our pals at the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), who have a cool $477 million endowment, yet only one of these three organizations is vilified in the media. White men are less than a third of the American population but account for almost two-thirds of legal gun ownership. The NRA’s membership is 84% white. In poll after poll, white Americans are the only racial demographic which consistently supports the right to bear arms.


Incidentally, they are also the only demographic which consistently polls in the majority for support of absolute free speech, which is an extremely harrowing thought. A recent Gallup poll showed that a majority of California Democrats (and disconcertingly almost half of Republicans) felt that the free speech of White Nationalists should not be protected. So much for the freedom for the thoughts that we hate. Another Gallup poll showed that a majority of college students polled believed that diversity and inclusion were more important than free speech. This is the consequence of both the shifting racial demographics of the United States and the prevalence of Cult-Marx propaganda. The foundational precepts and the philosophical inheritance of American republicanism and the Constitution simply cannot survive in an environment where groups who are hostile to them are growing in numbers at an accelerating rate. We’d like for it to not be true, but the adage demography is destiny is once again bearing itself out, and it means nothing less than the extinguishing of the American Experiment.

According to the Cato Institute’s 2017 Free Speech and Tolerance survey, 56% of blacks and 58% of Hispanics polled believed that the government should legally prohibit “hate speech.” 61% of all Democrats polled believed that racial epithets toward blacks should be made illegal, and 53% believed anti-Semitic statements should be banned. South Carolina was eager to comply. 65% of Hispanics believed it should be illegal to say anything offensive about them, and 62% of blacks felt the same about their own racial group. For point of comparison, 26% of whites felt that offensive speech about whites should be banned. 51% of self-identified liberals stated that it was morally defensible to “punch Nazis,” and 59% of this group believed that the United States should have, “a law that would require people to refer to transgender persons by their preferred gender pronouns, not their biological sex.” 75% of blacks and 72% of Hispanics polled agreed with the statement that, “Hate speech is an act of violence.” 66% of Democrats agreed. 62% of Hispanics and 59% of blacks believed that “disrespectful people” don’t deserve free speech.

Now ask yourself, in this magical future when whites are a minority, do you still think your rights will be protected? The land expropriations in South Africa come on the heels of a vote to amend the constitution; it was done in a perfectly legal fashion. What happens when white Americans are a minority in 2050, or looking globally, what about when Australians are a minority in their own country, as they’re projected to be by 2060? Or Canadians, projected to be a minority by 2040? According to Statistics Canada:

  • Almost 7 of 10 Vancouver residents will be visible minorities in less than two decades.
  • The number of non-white Canadians will “increase more rapidly than the rest of the population” and “could more than double by 2035 to between 13 million and 16.3 million.”
  • Non-whites already make up almost half of the residents of Metro Vancouver and a majority in Toronto.
  • The non-white working-age population of Greater Toronto will expand to 71 percent by 2036.
  • Canada will be 20 percent white, 65 percent non-white, and 15 percent mixed race by 2106.


What happens in New Zealand, so remote but also not immune to the White Guilt Complex sweeping the globe? Shifting demographics after their 1987 Immigration Act have Kiwis in Auckland projected to be a minority within a few years and European descendants in the entire country to be a minority by 2050. We can’t count on everyone to be as enlightened as Auckland Chinese Community Centre chairman Arthur Loo, a local-born Chinese man, who, “counts himself among those who would be ‘uncomfortable’ if there were more Asians, Pacific and Maori than Pakeha in Auckland”:

I wouldn’t want Pakeha to be the minority. I think we as New Zealanders have got to acknowledge what the founding peoples of New Zealand were, and it’s Maori and people from the United Kingdom…I mean all societies evolve, but I certainly won’t want to see the Anglo-Saxon or the English culture subjugated in any way because they, in a large part, have made what is New Zealand and that’s why we’re here. They were responsible for building New Zealand to what it is today, and other people come and we take advantage of that.

As far as former British colonies go, it is only the white Anglosphere that feels this pervasive need to allow entry to the entire world as penance for being products of colonialism whereas Jamaica and Guyana, for example, do not. Indeed, this crippling inability to simply say “No” has already brought the entire Western world—colonies and colonizers alike—to the precipice of destruction. In another era, the United States, like Haiti, was moved to act, and forcibly expelled a governing foreign power. The nations’ trajectories have been dramatically different, which has everything to do with both the fact that the Founding Fathers were less concerned with score-settling and more concerned with crafting a gorgeous document that is to date the pinnacle of Enlightenment thought on self-governance and respect for individual autonomy, and also with the human capital available in the building of both nations.

After all the white men were exterminated in the Haitian Revolution, and the constitution had been symbolically framed by Louis Boisrand-Tonnerre as using the “skin of a white man” as parchment, his blood for ink, and his skull as an inkwell, General Jean-Jacques Dessalines decreed that “Blacks and yellows [mulattoes]…now form a single family,” bound together over the rotting corpses of the slaughtered French. Now a nation founded on racial genocide comes to the United States, Canada, and their former French colonial masters with their hats in their hands begging for handouts and the chance to immigrate because they can’t even manage a functioning sewer system for a city of three million in Port-au-Prince. A confident, sane civilization would tell the Haitians that they made their grave when they dug them for the French, but our hearts bleed for the hell the Haitians themselves have created. It’s truly pathetic, for both the Haitians and their Western benefactors. The Haitians petitioned the French for reparations in 2010, and though in a rare moment of backbone they declined, then-French president Nicolas Sarkozy gave Haiti 230 million euros in aid post-earthquake. Former French president Francois Hollande claimed in 2015 that France owed Haiti a “moral debt” while apologizing for slavery and canceling Haiti’s $77 million debt.

Honestly I can see why non-Westerners feel such contempt for us; this is an undignified, weak, and cowardly prostration before a nation that seized self-determination and has done nothing but perpetuate misery since. Third Worlders, especially Muslims charged with the spirit of religious superiority, do not view these acts as beneficent or generous, they view them as capitulation and weakness, and if this self-induced guilt complex can be manipulated for funds or to accept flotillas of the global down-trodden, then all such mechanisms will be employed. Once, if you paid the Danegeld you’d never be free of the Dane. Now it is the Haitian, the Gambian, and the Afghani, for the Dane and the Frenchman and their Western brethren are all too eager to assuage their pangs of guilt by giving it all away; so long as they can have just one more generation of frivolity and excess.


John Q. Publius

by John Q. Publius

John Q. Publius writes for Republic Standard and runs the blog The Anatomically Correct Banana.