Sunday, March 27, 2016

Soros Controls Merkel

From here:


Tatjana Festerling gave this magnificent speech at the PEGIDA rally in Dresden last Monday, the night before the Brussels massacres. Her talk zeroes in on the NWO brokers — especially George Soros — who arranged the deal between Europe and Turkey on the migration crisis, a “solution” championed by Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Rembrandt Clancy has translated and subtitled the speech, and includes an informative introduction as well as a transcript.
“How can it be that one man is training this Chancellor in a refugee course; that this average woman is making irreversible decisions on her own, which annihilate a people and a culture; and no parliament is consulted, no ballot and no discussion about it takes place?”
by Rembrandt Clancy
On Monday, the 21st of March 2016 Tatjana Festerling delivered a speech at the weekly demonstration in Dresden.
Her main theme was the extra-parliamentary influences on Chancellor Angela Merkel in the context of mass Islamic migration into Europe. In particular, Frau Festerling draws attention to George Soros’ Project Syndicate (26 September 2015), a six-point “comprehensive plan” or manifesto for managing an annual influx of “at least a million asylum-seekers” into Europe for the “foreseeable future”. The scheme calls for putting into place a highly centralised administration for the management of what amounts to the thinning out of the native European ethnic populations — if that is not putting it too mildly.
The connection between the “comprehensive plan” and its praxis, or between Soros and Angela Merkel, is a little known figure, Gerald Knaus, director of the European Stability Initiative (ESI), a Soros-funded think tank (cf. for example, Open Society under “Current supporters” on the ESI website). Frau Festerling quotes Knaus directly in an interview he gave to Die Welt on 16 March 2016, wherein the ESI director appears recklessly candid, and even boastful about his influence on the politicians. But the newspaper itself states directly that
Gerald Knaus of the think tank ESI worked out the blueprint for Merkel’s asylum policy: close co-operation with Turkey and refugee quotas.
The European Stability Initiative brought this “blueprint” to completion on 4 October 2015 in a draft proposal called The Merkel Plan: restoring control; retaining compassion. Its core points also serve as a background to Tatjana Festerling’s speech:
  • Over the next 12 months Germany officially offers asylum to 500,000 Syrian refugees who are registered in Turkish camps and will transport them to Germany.
  • In return, Turkey will accept or take back all refugees who reach Greece via the Aegean.
  • Germany will compensate the Turkish concession by financial assistance and political support in the attainment of EU visa exemption in 2016.
It is interesting to compare the above “Merkel plan” with the actual negotiated results, at least as they are presented to the public by the European politicians who negotiated it: EU-Turkey statement, 18 March 2016.
Frau Festerling draws attention to a “day of action” to take place in Germany on 4 April. This is the date when migrants who have crossed the Aegean to enter Greece illegally will be sent back to Turkey and likewise “the resettlement of Syrian refugees in Europe” will begin (Reuters).
Tatjana Festerling: PEGIDA speech, 21 March 2016
The original German video source is broken into two parts totalling nearly 24 minutes. They can be accessed with the following links:
Good evening Dresden!
The three state elections were nothing other than a referendum on Angela Merkel. And she has failed with a bang. Even in Baden-Württemberg, the ‘little land’ of the economic miracle, Merkel’s party has shrunk inside of four years from 39 to 27 percent. Yet this Federal Chancellor simply carries on. And people the world over wonder whether the Germans are still playing with a full deck. But no one, not one of the over 600 representatives in the Bundestag, none of the 16 Minister-Presidents, none of the members of the Federal Council; simply no one prevents this woman one week later from going through with HER deal with Turkey. With this deal Merkel has betrayed and sold us Germans to Islam. And does that not characterise the condition of our so-called Democracy? They make a great fanfare of refusing to even sit down together in the television studio with the AfD [Alternative für Deutschland]; yet not only do they sit AT a table with the dictator, [Tayyip] Erdogan, no, they allow him to haul them OVER the table [as over a barrel]! And that is precisely what is intended; about that there is no longer any doubt. As recently as the 26th of September the so-called star-investor, George Soros, on his website, spoke in a six-point plan under the name of “Project Syndicate” about the building of a European asylum system.
It was his answer to Viktor Orbán, who had previously attacked him sharply and had identified him as the principal mastermind behind the stream of refugees bound for Europe. The tenor of the Soros text reads: “Europe must”; “Europe has to do”; “Europe is obligated to pay” and “Europe has to absorb and integrate more than a million asylum-seekers and migrants annually”. Soros expressly complains that some EU member states egoistically represent their own national interests; he rails against the “patchwork of 28 separate asylum systems” and blatantly demands a European central government. I ask Mr. Soros: WHY? Why should Europe follow your personal ideas? IS THERE A SINGLE ARGUMENT WHICH IS NOT GROUNDED IN THE WILL TO ANNIHILATION, RECKLESS STRIVING FOR POSSESSIONS, RAGE OR UNBRIDLED CRAVING? Is there a single rational basis for allowing millions of Muslims to feed off of the European unbelievers whom they nevertheless despise so deeply? Is there one, just one single comprehensible reason why Europe’s nations and cultures should abolish themselves, should kill themselves? Hence why is this grandpa interested in our Europe?
There have always been loony sect leaders who have motivated their little sheep to mass suicide. It may be that we are dealing here with such a phenomenon. People, who are swimming in money and possesses everything money can buy in the world, may tend — shortly before death — toward this kind of megalomania: ‘If I must die, then you should kindly do the same’. Therefore, once more — WHY? WHY Europe? WHY Germany?
A marvellous scientist, Professor Dr. Gunnar Heinsohn, posed just months ago the warranted, logical and obvious question: why are the refugees not remaining in the Near East? Merkel and the EU have to enter into negotiations with the Organisation for Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The 57 Islamic states, which are organised into the OIC, comprise close to 26 million square kilometres of land, which is more than 75 times the surface area as Germany and 6.5 times that of the entire EU. 1.5 billion inhabitants live in the OIC states; that is, ten million refugees correspond there to only 0.6 percent of the total population. Even 100 million fleeing Muslims only amount to a migrant component of 6 percent inside the Islamic world. That is infinitesimally small compared with approximately 20 percent migrants in Germany.
And most importantly: there, in the Islamic societies, Muslims can be completely and homogeneously integrated — that would solve at one stroke all religious conflicts in Europe. Now then, why are such solution-driven suggestions not even remotely discussed in Germany and at the level of the EU? Why instead does the Merkel-Turkey deal adviser [Gerald] Knaus express himself in the Die Welt thus: “Germany does not lapse like other states into anti-Islam rhetoric”? This sentence must be allowed to sink in: he wants us to say that Germans have long since resigned themselves to Islamisation; that the ominous formulaic phrase of former President Wulff “Islam belongs to Germany” has long since been consummated. Germany is already Islamised! And this sentence shows that it is quite intentionally about the Islamisation of Europe; in turbo-speed, through stoking up the mass migration of Muslim men.
The refugee crisis is being used to introduce a European central government here on the quiet and under societal constraints which are artificially talked into reality. But I will tell you one thing: You will not accomplish it! YOU WILL NOT WIN!
Widerstand! Widerstand! Widerstand!
Soros finances a world-wide network of so-called human rights activists, NGOs (non-government organizations) and think tanks — that is, think-workshops. His instruments include such humanitarian and human rights activists as the left-Green murder-band of Idomeni [English]. Also under Soros influence is an unremarkable man who has been whispering to Merkel for months about how she is to act in the refugee crisis. His name: Knaus. Gerald Knaus. Knaus is the chairman of the think tank ESI, the European Stability Initiative, e.V. [registered association] — “stability”, sounds good, doesn’t it? The name is pure marketing, camouflage and lies — for naturally they are not going to call their business ‘European Destruction Command’ or ‘European Islamisation Network’. Knaus, among other things, was an Associate Fellow at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University; hence he is a human rights activist at the highest intellectual level. Is that not interesting? This human rights activist has now worked out the deal with Turkey and with Merkel’s help has sold us to Erdogan. This human rights activist has no problem with an Erdogan who slaughters the Kurds, who finances the terror by buying oil from the Islamic State, who threatens his constitutional court and who has refugees shot down at the border.
This human rights activist has Merkel show up to an Erdogan who makes no secret of his greater-Ottoman plans of conquest, an Erdogan who clearly says that there is no moderate Islam — there is only THE Islam. And for this human rights activist, Knaus, it appears to be beside the point if part of the 6 billion, therefore German taxpayers’ money, flows into the war chest of the IS? No, Knaus wants the Berlin-Ankara axis and even insists on visa exemption for Turkey. Clearly, Turkey, well let’s just say Islam in general, is absolutely a paragon of honour and respect for human rights and principles of equality. And this Gerald Knaus said something else in a quotation last week in Die Welt:
We have recommended to the politicians… in the past few months: do not release any overall figures for the quotas coming from Turkey! Speak rather of a daily quota of a few hundred persons. Our suggestion is really comparable to the Berlin Airlift: it is sensible. But there is no end in sight for the moment”.
Ah ha, he recommends rather quite openly to politicians, to engage in trickery, deception and camouflage. Our politicians are to quite intentionally take us for a ride. And there is no end in sight. Does that mean therefore, that the previously mentioned 500,000 replacement-refugees of the Turkey deal are only the first little drop of truth?
Is that because, after the visa exemption, a further hundred thousand Kurds will flee and presumably also various extended families from the goat villages of Anatolia, all of whom wish to arrange a pretty comfortable life in their twilight years at the expense of the German social system? How can it be that one man is training this Chancellor in a refugee course; that this average woman is making irreversible decisions on her own, which annihilate a people and a culture; and no parliament is consulted, no ballot and no discussion about it takes place? Our national parliaments are therefore already de facto abrogated. Then the over 600 rubber-stampers in the Bundestag can also be dismissed and sent home, right? And how can it be that this clever little fellow, this Merkel-whisperer Knaus, simply takes no account of the findings of another admitted German think tank? No, he even ignores them completely. The prestigious Freiburg-based think tank SAT comes expressly to the conclusion that the deal with Turkey will not stop the stream of refugees at all. The idea is frankly naïve. These researchers use computational models to construct realistic scenarios for the future. Prognoses like these have long been in use as a planning instrument in commerce. The politicians ignore these findings — WHY? These researchers have drawn up five scenarios as to how the number of refugees will unfold.
And according to the best case scenario, the number of refugees will be reduced by the end of the year to 1.8 million people; at worst, the number will climb to 6.4 million — in 2016 alone. The researchers say very plainly that our politicians do not understand the dynamics of the events. They concentrate only on closing one route through Turkey and block out other factors. Yes, precisely: Mutti Merkel is focussed wholly and entirely on her Syrians, her Knaus and on Turkey, such troublesome findings only serve to interfere with governing. There is no beating around the bush: OF COURSE new refugee routes will arise, because the conflicts in Africa are intensifying and people will stream in through other countries regardless. And even the head of Frontex, [Fabrice] Leggeri, admits that. He thinks the solution can only be a distribution of people in Europe and the protection of the Schengen area. In order to better control the rush on the external borders of the EU, he suggests a cute little unit of 1,500 border guards “who are always at operational readiness”. Is this suggestion of a highly responsible custodian of Europe’s security intended seriously? No, friends, millions of Africans are chomping at the bit — with 180 million Nigerians leading the way.
Just last week, hardly noticed again by the public, Muslim extremists slaughtered 500 Christian farmers, and Boko Haram killed 22 people through suicide attacks. And by our current standards, the Nigerians have a right to protection and asylum. Why does the Harvard human rights activist, Knaus, not have them on standby at all? Dear friends, this modern, global mass migration behaves similarly to water: It always seeks a new way when it comes up against an obstacle. It is then that one might build a stable, solid dam — a high-tech border fence for example. As I have already said last week: Saudi Arabia and also Romania are showing what can be done. The Saudis are protecting themselves against intruders with a 900 kilometre long border system with ultramodern electronics, planned and built by Airbus Defence & Space! And this obvious solution of the high tech border fence appears nowhere in the deliberations. Everyone is remaining conspicuously guarded; even Airbus is not promoting it — strange, isn’t it? Is it possible there are directives? Is it possible that this is yet another indication that the power brokers behind the scenes have no interest at all in Europe’s self-protection and self-defence? In any case German underlings must not entertain the idea of contradicting their Mutti.
She even maintained that “we cannot protect our 3,000 kilometre long border.” In Europe we are enclosed by an approximately 14,000 kilometre external border; 30 billion euros should suffice for the high tech protection of the EU land frontier. Sea borders can be secured after the Australian model. Therefore there are no excuses — the European borders are defendable — even with manageable costs and with European technology. It even creates jobs and safeguards Europe’s cultures, values and freedom. Therefore — damn it yet again! — build this fence around Europe!
Festung Europa! Macht die Grenze dicht!
Fortress Europe! Seal the border up!
This fence can also be the great European project for which everyone is yearning; a project for the collective defence of Europe, which strengthens European self-awareness and identity and binds together the European peoples. And woe, these bigoted, left-Green depraved characters now approach us again with their hollow catchword ‘empathy’! You left-Green terrorists, you refugee murderers, you have proved that for you it is never about human life, but only about the blackmail and coercion of the politicians. Were it about humanity, you would not have accepted in an ice-cold manner the death of your people in search of protection, but in Idomeni you would have led them a few metres further over the bridge.
You simple-minded, egoistic humanity-dimwits are no longer going to poison the climate of opinion here in Germany and you will in no way continue to intimidate us. You state and Soros fat-fattened moralising drones preach solidarity and empathy on the surface, while underneath you skim-off to your own advantage. You will NOT win!
And we Germans — we can bring this engine to a standstill. A single day of action: hundreds of thousands of Germans holding back, by remaining in bed for a single day. Call in sick! A single day which sends a signal to the world. A one-day standstill: on the 4th of April when the Turkey deal kicks off, that will be the measured reaction! And it is not enough to bellyache at the Stammtisch or on Facebook and to otherwise conscientiously sort waste. If we wish to preserve what is dear to us, we now have to become REBELS!
And Frau Merkel, to you I say this: one who allows government operations to be dictated by a financial mogul like Soros commits high treason against our country!
Volksverräter! Volksverräter! Volksverräter!
Traitor to the nation!
Many thanks to all of you for coming again and again to PEGIDA and showing the world that it is not only lunatics who live in the open-air loony bin of Germany.
For links to previous articles about PEGIDA (Patriotische Europäer Gegen die Islamisierung des Abendlandes, Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West) and related movements, see the PEGIDA Archives.

Ironic Justice: Brussels Funds Terrorists!

From here and  here:

The Consequences of Anti-Zionism

The Israeli government needs to pointedly and consistently explain to the leaders of Europe that their assault on Israel will not convince the jihadists to spare them.
What do radical Israeli groups have in common with their European funders? Last Thursday, Channel 2 broadcast candid camera footage of Breaking the Silence members gathering classified information on IDF operations. The footage was taken by Ad Kan activists.
Breaking the Silence claims to be an organization dedicated to collecting testimonies from IDF soldiers documenting ill-treatment of Palestinians. Posing as soldiers with information to share, Ad Kan activists were interrogated by Breaking the Silence investigators.
Yet rather than question them about how their units treated Palestinians, Breaking the Silence members asked them about troop movements, weapons platforms, IDF cooperation with foreign militaries. The investigators asked what sort of guns an unmanned combat vehicle carried, who controlled the vehicle and whether it was in operational use.
They wanted to know how the IDF discovers Hamas tunnels. They wanted to know when tanks were used in battles and how.
TREASON: Breaking the Silence’s intelligence operations didn’t stop with post-operational debriefs.
A Breaking the Silence employee named Frima Bobis is filmed telling Ad Kan activists how when she was still in high school, a Breaking the Silence worker advised her where to serve during her military service. Hey, that even qualifies as a subversion conspiracy!
She followed his advice, served in the civil administration’s office in Nablus, and upon her discharge, was able to give Breaking the Silence useful information.
Breaking the Silence hired her shortly after her return to civilian life.
Julia Novak, Breaking the Silence’s executive director, did not dispute Ad Kan’s findings. In her response to the broadcast she gave three defenses for her group’s activities.
First, she said, Ad Kan’s findings are unworthy of attention because it is a “settler” organization.
Second, she said that her group’s noble goal of “ending the occupation” gives it the right to collect and hold classified information. In other words, just as Ad Kan’s support for Israeli control over Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem makes it illegitimate, so Breaking the Silence’s support for ending “the occupation” renders it immune from criticism. All criminals are victim-blaming slanderous hypocrites.
These claims ring familiar. Similar claims were made in January by her comrades after Channel 2’s investigative magazine Uvda broadcast another Ad Kan, report. That report showed members of Breaking the Silence engaging in what appeared to be various forms of criminal activities with members of Ta’ayush. Those activities included tax evasion and unlawfully interfering with military operations as well as assaulting soldiers.
The January report also showed senior Ta’ayush and B’Tselem operatives Ezra Nawi and Nasser Nawaja apparently plotting to turn a Palestinian interested in selling his land to Jews over to Palestinian security services with the full knowledge that they would torture and murder him.
B’Tselem’s response to the January report was first to dismiss its legitimacy. Uvda, the group insisted, was wrong to broadcast the report because it was filmed by Ad Kan investigators rather than Uvda reporters. Typical criminal subjectivism: they only care about who does something, not what's done!
B’Tselem’s claim was particularly rich given that Channel 2 makes liberal use of footage B’Tselem provides its reporters.
Just as Novak doubled down on Breaking the Silence’s spying operations, insisting they were legitimate without explaining why, so B’Tselem justified Nawaja’s actions insisting that handing Palestinian land sellers over to the PA is “the only legitimate path available to Palestinians.”
B’Tselem didn’t explain why Nawaja didn’t just get his donor friends to buy the land. The self-proclaimed human rights group didn’t explain why its senior employee couldn’t accept the human right of Palestinians to sell their land to Jews or the human right of Jews to buy land from a willing Palestinian seller.
B’Tselem didn’t explain why it legitimate to turn over innocents to PA henchmen with the full knowledge that doing so will lead to their torture and murder.
It isn’t that the radical Left’s goal of expelling all Jews and IDF units from Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem is inherently illegitimate. It is arguably just as legitimate as the late Meir Kahane’s goal of expelling all Arabs from Judea and Samaria.
I'm surprised Caroline Glick would make this argument from racism, when she should know that the 'Arabs'' reasons for expelling all the Jews from Israel have nothing to do with fake "palestine" - and everything to do with the Qur'an - which was written at a time when there were no Jews left there!
But it's a common fallacy trope used by clueless Israelis, who presume the conflict is race & religion!
But the fact that your goal is legitimate doesn’t give you the right to break the law. In other words, Breaking the Silence is legitimate. Breaking the law is not. Being a crime-gang, islam is illegitimate.
Ad Kan’s revelations are startling not because they call into question the legitimacy of the radical Left’s goal. They are startling because they show that in advancing that goal, radical leftist groups have a distressing comfort level with criminal activities. All leftists are extortionist criminal gangsters, Ms.Glick.
And this brings us to Novak’s third justification for her group’s intelligence operations.
Novak said that Breaking the Silence’s activities are permissible because it always gets the Military Censor’s permission before it publishes its reports. But that merely exacerbates suspicions.
If it isn’t publishing the classified information it gathers, why is it gathering it? Whom is it gathering it for? Which brings us to Europe.
According to NGO Monitor, in 2014, 61 percent of Breaking the Silence’s budget came from European governments.
After Uvda broadcast Ad Kan’s footage of Nawi and Nawaja apparently plotting the murder of an innocent Palestinian in January, British legislators demanded that the Foreign Office justify government funding of B’Tselem.
The same parliamentarians could just as easily have asked why their government funds the Palestinian Authority, which murders innocent Palestinians.
In the event, once the media storm passed, things went back to normal for the British and their radical leftist agents.
Will the same pattern follow today? In the aftermath of the ISIS attacks in Brussels, will Europeans demand to know why European resources are being used to fund espionage against the IDF on the one hand, and Palestinian security services that commit murder and support jihad on the other? The upshot of Ad Kan’s revelations, which indicate widespread criminal activity by EU-funded radical groups, is not that these groups are inherently criminal. Why the hell not?!
But they do indicate that members of these groups have a cavalier attitude – at best – about respecting the law. Which means they are criminals - criminality requires intent, ditto for criminal negligence!
In a similar fashion, Europe’s funding of anti-Israel campaigns like its bankrolling of the PA does not make the EU incompetent to deal with the jihadist forces that are presently assaulting its member nations and citizens. But it is true that there seems to be a direct correlation between hostility to Israel and inability to competently fight jihadists. And this makes sense. If you believe that Israel is the cause of the pathologies of the Islamic world, then you will likely be blind to the nature of the jihadist threat and the danger it poses to your nation.
Following the ISIS strikes in Brussels, both Israeli and American security experts spoke bitterly of the ineptitude of Belgian security services. It is not that the forces themselves are incompetent. Rather, the experts said, their political leadership refuses to allow them to take the actions necessary to protect their country.
The Belgians, like their European brethren generally, refuse to deal with jihad. Rather than acknowledge and deal forthrightly with the phenomenon, they seek every possible excuse to ignore it.
According to senior government officials, the Belgians are among the most vociferous foes of Israel in the EU. Europe’s obsessive castigation of Israel is a central aspect of their jihad avoidance strategy. If Israel is to blame for everything, then they can save themselves by pouring billions of euros on the PA and by funding Israeli anti-Zionist subversives.
This position is of course irrational. In clinging to it, the Europeans have enabled the jihadist forces arrayed against them to gather and grow.
Consider the July 7, 2005, attacks in London. Shortly after they occurred, British investigators discovered that Muhammad Sidique Khan, who led the British al-Qaida cell that carried out the attacks, was connected to the British jihadists who carried out the 2003 suicide bombing at Mike’s Place pub in Tel Aviv, adjacent to the US Embassy.
The Mike’s Place bombers were also connected with the radical Left, having toured Israel and Gaza with an International Solidarity Movement group before carrying out their attack.
Yet, just as British authorities ignored the significance of the participation of British jihadists in the jihad against Israel 13 years ago, and disregarded the significance of the post-7/7 revelations 11 years ago, so in the intervening years, as jihadist forces grew and spread throughout the continent, rather than shed their hostility toward Israel and stop blaming it for the jihadist Islam, the Europeans expanded their onslaught against the Jewish state.
The EU’s subversive activities on the ground massively expanded as did its political and economic war against Israel internationally. The EU’s decision to promote economic boycotts of Israel by labeling Israeli products is just the latest indication that as the threat of jihad grows, the Europeans have doubled down on their campaigns to harm Israel.
Is it possible for them to change course? Last week Foreign Ministry director-general Dore Gold visited South Africa. The anti-Israel boycott movement, like the pernicious campaign to libel the Jewish state “apartheid,” was born in South Africa 15 years ago. At the notorious Durban conference on the eve of the September 11, 2001, jihadist attacks, the international NGO movement voted to criminalize the Jewish state.
Since 1994, reports have surfaced of jihadist groups, including al-Qaida, Hamas and Hezbollah, operating training camps in South Africa. The order for jihadists to carry out the 2013 massacre at Nairobi’s Westgate Mall reportedly came from al-Qaida operatives in South Africa.
Last October, South African President Jacob Zuma hosted Hamas terrorism-master Khaled Mashaal for a four-day visit.
During his stay in South Africa, Gold gently tried to explain to his hosts that their support for jihadists and their hostility for Israel would not protect them from the ravages of jihad. But the danger is still too intangible for them. They couldn’t grasp what he was saying.
Now that Europe is paying the price for its refusal to contend with the threat of jihad, will its leaders wake up to reality?
With ISIS now capable of attacking at will in almost every city in Europe, will they realize that the time has come to stop funding Palestinian jihadists and Israeli subversives? Or is it too late for them to change course?
Will they cling to the bitter end to their anti-Semitic delusion that by feeding the Jewish state to the jihadist tiger, he will not come for them?
For Israel, the path is clear regardless of what Europe decides. Our law enforcement bodies need to investigate and prosecute left-wing criminals with the same seriousness they investigate and prosecute all other criminals, regardless of the support they receive from their European funders. And our government needs to pointedly and consistently explain to the leaders of Europe that their assault on Israel will not convince the jihadists to spare them. So far all the Europeans have for their efforts are massacred civilians and shattered defenses.

Thursday, March 24, 2016


Racial Ratios
Earlier this month, John Rivers tweeted out his hope for the future:
I dream of a world where a mid­level manager in a mid­level company can accurately quote FBI crime statistics on Facebook and not be fired.
We don’t live in that utopia, however, so you should be cautious about mentioning this article at work. But at least accurately quoting government crime statistics is more convenient than ever due to the publication of The Color of Crime, 2016 Revised Edition.
Researched and written in a sober, judicious manner by veteran economic analyst Edwin S. Rubenstein, this is the first update since 2005 of Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance magazine’s venerable report on racial differences in crime rates.
Most of the government data used in the report ends with the year 2013, and therefore generally offers an encouraging contrast to the last report’s use of 2002 as its terminus. From 2002 to 2013, most crime rates fell, and racial differences moderated somewhat.
An epilogue to this 12,000­-word study, however, deals with the alarming spike in homicide rates in 2015 during the Black Lives Matter agitation. The Washington Post reported in January:
The number of homicides in the country’s 50 largest cities rose nearly 17 percent last year, the greatest increase in lethal violence in a quarter century. A Wonkblog analysis of preliminary crime data found that about 770 more people were killed in major cities last year than the year before, the worst annual change since 1990.
It’s tragic but hardly unexpected that the anti­white race-baiting by the Obama Administration, the Soros Foundation, and the national media has led to hundreds more blacks being murdered by other blacks.
“A body with a hole in it demands attention.”
After all, that’s also what happened in the 1960s, the last time liberals grabbed control of the criminal justice system. During the Warren Court era, incarceration was driven way down per crime committed, so, amazingly enough, more crimes were committed. Before that historic mistake was finally rectified, much of urban America had been reduced to depopulating slums.
Rubenstein carefully walks readers through the different sources of statistics about crime and race, such as arrests, imprisonment, and interviews with victims.
All three measures come up with similar racial ratios. On average, blacks commit more violent crimes than Hispanics, who commit more than whites, who commit more than Asians.
The more severe the crime, the worse the racial ratios tend to be. For example, California data is instructive because it carefully breaks out Latinos from whites, whereas federal statistics usually lump whites and Hispanics together. In California, blacks are arrested for homicide 8.6 times as often as whites (down from 9.8 times in 2002) compared with 2.5 times for Hispanics (down from 3.6 in 2002). Robbery, a career that favors the athletic and fleet of foot, is even more of a black specialty, with a black-to-white ratio of 13.4 (down from 15.9 in 2002) versus 2.0 for Hispanics (down from 2.7).
In contrast, in California, blacks are arrested for driving offenses only 1.7 times as often as whites, and Hispanics merely 1.3 times as often.
Or, to use national statistics, blacks are incarcerated 13.1 times as often as whites in state prisons for robbery but only 2.6 times as often for “other property crimes.”
Rubenstein makes the important point that this pattern of lower racial ratios for less vicious crimes is inconsistent with the conventional wisdom that racial differences must be the result of blacks and Hispanics being the victims of discrimination by police and juries:
Almost without exception, the black/white and Hispanic/white arrest multiples are lower for the less serious crimes. Whatever else this difference may mean, it is strong evidence that the police are not making biased arrests. Police have broad discretion as to whether they will arrest someone for forcible touching, shoplifting, or setting off a false fire alarm. If racist police wanted to vent prejudices on non-whites, these are the crimes for which they could most easily do so. They can walk away if someone complains he was spat on, and if they are racist they can walk away if the spitter is white but make an arrest if the spitter is black. Police cannot walk away if someone is lying on the sidewalk bleeding from a knife wound.
A body with a hole in it demands attention.
Interracial violence, contrary to the impression you might get these days from the obsessions of respectable media outlets, is overwhelmingly skewed toward victimizing whites (and Asians):
In 2012 and 2013, blacks committed an annual average of 560,600 crimes of violence against whites whereas whites committed only about 99,400 such crimes against blacks. This means blacks were the attackers in 84.9 percent of the violent crimes involving blacks and whites.
The differences in propensity toward interracial violence are noteworthy:
In 2012/2013, the actual likelihood of attack was extremely low in all cases, but statistically, any given black person was 27 times more likely to attack a white and six times more likely to attack a Hispanic than vice versa. A Hispanic was eight times more likely to attack a white than the reverse.
Rubenstein puts “Black Lives Matter” into proper perspective by citing federal murder statistics:
Although most murders are within the same race, [individual] blacks were 13.6 times more likely to kill non­blacks than [individual] non­blacks were to kill blacks.
Of course, the relatively rare cases of whites attacking blacks monopolize media attention for the same reason that “Man Bites Dog” is more lucrative clickbait than “Dog Bites Man.”
Across the country, the incarceration rate for Hispanics is 289 vs. 113 for whites (vs. 709 for blacks). East Coast mulatto Hispanics from the Caribbean appear to be more crime-prone than Sun Belt mestizo Hispanics from Mesoamerica.
The recent decline in Hispanic crime rates in California is striking, especially when compared with the savagery across the border in Mexico during the same years. Estimates of the death toll in the Mexican drug war between 2006 and 2013 center around 120,000.
My guess is that the opposing trends are symbiotic. When my father and I used to drive around Mexico on vacations in the 1960s through 1980s, the crime rate may have been lower in Mexico than in California. Back then crime didn’t pay in semi­dictatorial Mexico but did pay in progressive California, where American­-born Chicanos flocked to join gangs to do battle with black gangs.
Since America lengthened prison sentences and Mexico wrested cocaine smuggling away from the Colombian cartels, though, crime is more likely to pay south of the border. Immigrant convicts who get deported after their sentences are up may now find it more profitable to stay in Mexico to pursue careers in drugs.
Also, America may be getting a less troublesome sort of immigrant from Mexico since the 1996 reforms restricted welfare. Mexicans in the United States increasingly come from the smaller, more docile, more Indian peoples of central and southern Mexico, while the Chicanos of a generation ago tended to be bigger, whiter, and from the more violent lands of northern Mexico.
This doesn’t mean that recent immigrants are all that law­-abiding, but they do tend to attract less police attention. Death rates from heroin overdoses, for example, have skyrocketed in the American heartland since the Mexican drug pushers arrived. Sam Quinones’ award­-winning book Dreamland: The True Tale of America’s Opiate Epidemic documents how a Jalisco gang of black-tar heroin retailers has spread overdose deaths by staying off the cops’ radar. Also, they avoid having anything to do with African-Americans, whom the Mexican smack dealers stereotype as being prone to theft and violence. (When accurately quoting FBI crime statistics is criminal, only criminals will accurately quote FBI crime statistics.)
There has been much denunciation by Democrats and the more Jeb Bush-­like Republicans of mass incarceration, but The Color of Crime points out that imprisonment is in decline:
The incarceration rate peaked at 788 per 100,000 US residents in 2007 and declined to 730 by 2013.
Until the post­-Ferguson spike in black­-on-­black crime, it was looking as if imprisonment would begin to fall rapidly as the murderers of the crack era of a quarter century ago began to die off or be released.
Those who rage against “mass incarceration” would be more persuasive if they first apologized for what their ideological predecessors did to America in the 1960s and 1970s, and then explained why, exactly, they aren’t going to do the same thing all over again.