Obama’s quickening effect on conservatives

Folks, here is evidence to support my theory that an Obama presidency, though a disaster for the country in many ways, could help deliver America from its liberal illusions about race, and thus help save America and even the West itself. Last week Barack Obama in an interview made the repulsive statement that his grandma who raised him, Madelyn Dunham, is a “typical white person” who, 30 years ago, because of a prejudice that had been “bred” into her as a white person, responded in fear to a black panhandler who accosted her at a bus stop. In response, Randall Hoven at the American Thinker has produced a Jared Taylor-type article on racial differences in murder rates in the United States. Hoven writes that blacks, making up 13 percent of the population, commit 51 percent of the murders, while whites, with 69 percent of the population (I think that’s the figure in the 2000 census), commit 48 percent of murders. After breaking down the racial data in the sort of statistical table you would normally expect to see at American Renaissance, Hoven concludes:

[T]he chance of just any person you see on the street murdering someone this year is about 5 of 100,000 (assuming you see a random sample of people). The same chance of a white person is 3.5 of 100,000. And the same chance for a black person is 19.7 of 100,000. That means a black person is 5.6 times more likely than a white person to be a murderer.

It is totally rational for a any person (including Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama’s grandmother) to fear a black person more than a white one. In fact, you should fear them 5.6 times more.

Now, if Obama, as the supposed “beyond-race” presidential candidate who in fact justifies the most vicious type of black racism in the person of Jeremiah Wright and who disseminates liberal lies about supposed white racism, can trigger a mainstream conservative publication like the American Thinker to counter those lies with the forbidden truth about black criminality and violence, imagine what four years of Obama type black racism in the White House would achieve.

The Hoven article is a hopeful glimpse of a new and more serious type of conservatism that would take shape in response to an Obama presidency.

Also, guess how I came upon the article? It is a “Must Read of the Day” at Lucianne.com, the Id of grassroots Republicanism.

- end of initial entry -

Simon N. writes from Britain:

“Hoven writes that blacks, making up 13 percent of the population,commit 51 percent of the murders, while whites, with 69 percent of thepopulation (I think that’s the figure in the 2000 census), commit 48percent of murders”

White & Black Population: 13+69= 82%, whereas White & Black Perpetrators 51+48=99%.

Looks like these are DoJ figures, which count Hispanic perpetrators as white, but Hispanic victims as Hispanic. Hispanic violent crime rate is around 3.3 times white rate. In reality non-Hispanic whites commit far less than 48% of murders, and the black-white discrepancy is more like 6.8 than 5.6.

A. Zarkov writes:

A more probing analysis race and crime, or rather of black on white crime, is here, in an article called “Crimes in the Hood.”

This is a technical article with graphs and equations. If you don’t want to wade through the technical stuff just read intro and conclusions.

The author calculates the danger to whites as their neighborhood gets blacker by setting up a mathematical model, using real data and drawing conclusions. He shows that blacks actually prefer white victims over other blacks. Thus a white living in a black neighborhood or a neighborhood becoming black has a greater probability of becoming a crime victim than other blacks in the same neighborhood. In other words, whites do suffer more crime just because they live in a neighborhood with a higher level of crime. They suffer more because they are white. Their danger increases dramatically as the white black ration shrinks.

His summary:

We have modeled violent victimization of whites in a racially mixed neighborhood. Our model is based on data collected by the Justice Department and reported in the NCVS. It paints a bleak picture for whites. As a neighborhood turns black, violent victimization of its white residents begins immediately. At first the risk is small, not much different from its previous all-white level. However, by the time the neighborhood reaches the half-black point, every white family of four has better than a one in three chance of being victimized within a year. Two factors account for black-on-white violence. 1) Blacks are 3 times more likely to commit violent crime than whites, and 2) black thugs prefer white victims, selecting them 64 times more than white thugs choose black victims. Most of the risk faced by whites, results from the predilection of black thugs to prey upon whites. As a neighborhood becomes overwhelmingly black, the risk curve for whites rises to ominous heights. In the last stages of transformation, the likelihood of a white being victimized within a year becomes a virtual certainty.

“La Griffe Du Lion” is the pen name of an unknown mathematician, most likely a professor somewhere. No doubt he would suffer if he were unmasked. I have not checked every calculation and worked through all the logic, but it seems sound at first glance.

If you have trouble with some parts just ask me, or you could try sending him an email, but I don’t know if he would answer.

Thus we see Obama’s speech is truly outrageous because the whites are the targets of black criminals. His grandmother was showing ordinary common sense.

LA replies:

I’ve always felt that data on interracial crime was too general. More was needed on what the breakdown was according to the racial mix of a given neighorhood. This provides that.

Thucydides writes:

The numbers that measure the crime threat by comparing the percentage of violent crime committed by blacks with their percentage of the population don’t really convey the risk.

Essentially all the violent crime is committed by young black men, a small percentage of the black population. This means that the risk when one sees a young black man on the street is much higher than the figures obtained by the above method.

Simon N. writes:

Re La Griffe’s “Crime in the Hood,” I’m familiar with it. Note that Griffe does not prove that blacks preferentially target whites, he assumes for the sake of his model that black criminals preferentially target whites—“Consistentwith NCVS data, we assume that if presented with a convenient choice, bothblack and white thugs will select white victims over black.” I’ve seen other studies on the NCVS data which indicate that when you control for the level of integration among blacks and whites, there is for most sorts of crime (eg homicide) not strong data of preferential targetting. Thus it was possible for Eminem to be a white hip hop artist in black Detroit without being mugged or killed every day. The exception is rape; controlling for integration there is strong statistical evidence that black rapists preferentially target white victims and white rapists also preferentially target white victims, avoiding black victims.

La Griffe’s study is still useful, one thing it does is support the “tipping point” effect—when enough blacks have moved in and whites have moved out, you get a cascade effect where the remaining whites become much more likely to become victims, spurring rapid white flight.

Andy M. writes:

Simon N. wrote: “I’ve seen other studies on the NCVS data which indicate that when you control for the level of integration among blacks and whites, there is for most sorts of crime (eg homicide) not strong data of preferential targetting.”

This is false. Homicide is not included in NCVS data, for obvious reasons: victims of homicide can’t fill out surveys. It would also be helpful if Simon could provide links to the studies he mentions. Citing the one example of “Eminem” is not helpful.

A. Zarkov writes:

Simon N. says: ” … he assumes for the sake of his model that black criminals preferentially target whites…”

If you assume the reverse, that blacks don’t preferentially target whites, then the NCVS data contradicts that assumption. Otherwise blacks and whites would simply suffer the same rates of victimization. Of course the real situation is more complicated. A more complex model would include age and sex as explanatory variables. Obviously women, especially white women, are more like to be sexual assault victims and that’s one of the major crimes of violence.

If anyone has a study that contradicts the La Griffe Du Lion model, I’d like to see it. This is a simple back-of-the-envelope calculation designed to provoke discussion and point out implications of the NCVS data. This data is an important resource because it does not rely on arrests or convictions, and gets around the unsubstantiated criticism that the Criminal Justice System is biased against blacks. I’m worried that ultimately political correctness will eliminate the NCVS or close it off to public view. That’s what happened to the INTERPOL data. Circa 2002 while browsing the European homicide rates on the INTERPOL website, I found that Scotland had three time the US homicide rate. A few years later I found that INTERPOL had closed off this data to the public making it available only to law enforcement. I’m going to guess, and it’s only a guess, that some European countries became embarrassed about their growing crime rates and pressured INTERPOL to close off the database. I’m worried that a President Obama would do the same with the NCVS as this data is a continuing source of embarrassment to the people who tell us that blacks are really not more violent than whites.

Simon N. writes:

Andy M said: “This is false. Homicide is not included in NCVS data, for obvious reasons: victims of homicide can’t fill out surveys. It would also behelpful if Simon could provide links to the studies he mentions. Citing the one example of “Eminem” is not helpful.”

I don’t recall the source, but like the La Griffe study I expect I’ll have got to it from Steve Sailer’s blog. It may have used data from “The Color of Crime” which is a study of Department of Justice recorded crime rather than from survey data. The important point is that when assessing preferential targetting, you need to look at opportunity—in this case how often does a black criminal come across a white potential victim as opposed to a black potential victim. If the US population were perfectly integrated, with 6 whites for every 1 black, then the black criminal would come across 6 white potential victims for every 1 black, and with no preferential targetting there would be 6 white victims for every 1 black, ie about 85% white to 15% black, ignoring other races. In fact the U.S. population is not perfectly integrated and it’s more like 50-50.

The Eminem example does show that the extreme case arising from La Griffe’s model is false. Per his model, if you have one white & one million blacks in an area, every black criminal in the area will target that one white.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 24, 2008 11:18 AM | Send