Victims of racist attacks in Oldham: 62% White
Victims wounded in racist attacks: 83.3% White
Victims murdered in racist attacks: 41.4% White.
Racist assault victims: 62.5% White
1 in 5 murder/rape suspects are immigrants:
More hate crimes against Christians than against Muslims:
- Blacks are 5 times more likely to commit violence against the person.
- Blacks are 4 times ‘more likely’ to commit sexual offences.
- Blacks are 15 times ‘more likely’ to commit robbery.
- Blacks are over 6 times ‘more likely’ to commit fraud and forgery.
- Blacks are over twice as likely to commit criminal damage.
- Black are 5 times ‘more likely’ to commit drugs offences.
- Violence against the person is 5 times more prevalent in the black community, than in the white community.
- Drugs offences are 16 times more prevalent in the black community, and 3 time more prevalent in the Asian community, than in the white community.
- Robbery is over 9 times more prevalent in the black community, than in the white community.
- Committing homicide is 6 times more prevalent in the black community, and twice as prevalent in the Asian community, than it is in the white community.
- The homicidal killing of white people is 90 times more prevalent in the black community, than the homicidal killing of black people in the white community.
- The homicidal killing of white people is 30 times more prevalent in the Asian community, than the homicidal killing of Asian people in the white community.
- The number of white victims of interracial homicide is approximately 40 times greater than expected, when compared to the number of such victims in the minority (BME)community.
- The white community suffers more victims of interracial and racially motivated homicide than all of the minority (BME)communities put together – despite the BME communities being less than 10 per cent of the total population.
- The number of white victims of racially motivated homicide is approximately 50 times greater than expected, when compared to the number of such victims in the minority (BME)community.
“Street crimes”: 54% black
Robbery: 59% black
Gun crimes: 67% black
Gun Crime: 29% black
Knife crime: 24% black
41% of black African, 36% of Bangladeshi and 35% of Indian people feel they have a say in decisions affecting Britain, compared to 19% of white people.
72% of murder suspects in London are non-white.
1. Black people are heavily overrepresented in all riots but one (Salford, 1.7% of arrests)
2. Over 50% arrested are black in all London riots (up to 82% black, 10% white in Lambeth)
3. All but two London areas (both central) with above average black population rioted
4. Poor and uneducated non-black areas did not riot or had small riots
5. Older black people are more likely to riot than whites of any age, incl. youths
6. Whites aged 10-17 are not overrepresented, blacks aged 10-17 are – heavily
7. Black Londoners are 2.87 times as unemployed as whites, but 9.65 times more likely to riot
Anti-White Racial Crime Statistics In Britain
1-in-10-french-indigenes-has-been victim of racism
Third of rapists and killers ‘are foreign’
1 in 5 native French have been victims of racist insults/attacks
‘Immigrant crimewave’ warning: Foreign nationals were accused of a QUARTER of all crimes in London
London is home to the UK’s ten most violent places to live
85% of hate crime victims in Europe are Christians
1/5 prisoners in youth jails are Muslims
Victims of racist attacks per capita:
9 in 10,000 Whites
9 in 10,000 Hispanics
7 in 10,000 Blacks
Two of the stereotypes surrounding serial killers are that they are almost always White males and that Black males are barely represented in their ranks. In a sample of 413 serial killers operating in the United States from 1945 to mid-2004, it was found that 90 were Black. Relative to the Black proportion of the population across that time period, Blacks were overrepresented in the ranks of serial killers by a factor of about 2.
Black serial killers have never represented less than 26.83% of the number of serial killers in a given decade, despite their overall percentage of the population never exceeding 13.1%. This trend has steadily increased to the point that in our current decade they represent 88.24% of the number of serial killers apprehended since 2010, yet only account for 12.6% of the populace.
- Blacks are 7 times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and 8 times more likely to commit robbery.
- The single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic.
- Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85% and whites commit 15%.
- Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. 45% of their victims are white, 43% are black, and 10% are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only 3% of their victims are black.
- Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.
- Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes against whites than vice versa.
http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.htmlWhite rape victims:
44.5% raped by a white man
33.6% raped by a black man
Black rape victims:
100% raped by a black man
0% raped by a white man
Most victims of race crime—about 90 per cent—are white, according to the survey “Highlights from 20 Years of Surveying Crime Victims“, published in 1993.Almost 1 million white Americans were murdered, robbed, assaulted or raped by black Americans in 1992, compared with about 132,000 blacks who were murdered, robbed, assaulted or raped by whites, according to the same survey.Blacks thus committed 7.5 times more violent inter-racial crimes than whites even though the black population is only one-seventh the size of the white population. When these figures are adjusted on a per capita basis, they reveal an extraordinary disparity: blacks are committing more than 50 times the number of violent racial crimes of whites.
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/144525.pdfCourtesy of Patrick Buchanan’s “Suicide of a Superpower” come the FBI’s crime figures for 2007: “Blacks committed 433,934 violent crimes against whites, eight times as many as the 55,685 that whites committed against blacks. Interracial rape is almost exclusively black-on-white, with 14,000 assaults on white women by African-American males in 2007. Not one case of white sexual assault on a black female was found in the FBI study.” (Page 243)
Crime East Saint Louis National average Murder 101.9 5.6 Rape 251.3 32.2 Robbery 1,347.0 195.4 Assault 5,847.3 340.1 Burglary 2,442.8 814.5 Automobile theft 2,067.5 526.5
When presented with these horrifying violent acts committed against whites for racial reasons, some people respond with the argument that these occurrences must be flukes. They’re just isolated incidents, this line of reasoning goes; surely the overall statistics show that whites attack blacks much more often than blacks attack whites. This is a “straw man” argument: Even if it were true, it would still not affect the fundamental point that anti-black hate crimes receive national coverage and trigger political denunciations, while anti-white crimes are ignored. Besides, isn’t the media all about reporting flukes? As they say in the news business, “Dog bites man” is not a story, but “Man bites dog” is. Or, to use another example, an airplane landing safely is not news — an airplane crashing is. So if these instances of anti-white violence were incredibly rare, that would be even more of a justification for covering them, not less. But these instances aren’t rare. The statistics show this.The book Hate Crimes: Criminal Law and Identity Politics is a revelatory study of the phenomena. It was coauthored by James B. Jacobs, who is the director of the Center for Research in Crime and Justice at New York University and a professor of law at the NYU School of Law, and Kimberly Potter, an attorney who was formerly a research fellow at the Center for Research in Crime and Justice. Published by Oxford University Press as part of their Studies in Crime and Public Policy series, its credibility is as impeccable as possible.
The loudly promoted “hate crime epidemic” in America is an illusion.
Jacobs and Potter examine many of the myths and problems surrounding the idea of hate crimes, showing, among other things, that the loudly promoted “hate crime epidemic” in America is an illusion. Hate crimes have never been more than a tiny fraction of overall violent crime, and the numbers have actually been holding steady or decreasing in recent years.22
The authors also reveal the surprising statistics regarding interracial crime. It turns out that 80 percent of violent crimes involve an attacker and victim of the same race. “For the 20 percent of violent crimes that are interracial, 15 percent involve black offenders and white victims; 2 percent involve white offenders and black victims; and 3 percent involve other combinations.”23
These statistics include all instances of interracial violent crime, not just those labeled “hate crimes.” To see the rates of anti-white and anti-black violence that have been categorized as hate crimes, one only needs to take a cursory look at the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports specifically on hate crime to see that blacks commit them at a higher rate than whites.24
According to the US Census Bureau’s most recent projection (for Sept. 1, 2000), 82.2 percent of the US population is white, while 12.8 percent is black. If Hispanics are excluded from both counts, then the numbers are 71.4 percent white and 12.2 percent black.25
In the most recent year for which FBI data are available (1998), we see that there were 2,084 anti-black hate crimes committed by whites, and 567 anti-white hate crimes committed by blacks. Though the absolute number of anti-black crimes is 3.6 times as high as anti-white crimes, keep in mind that there are almost six times as many whites as blacks in the US. To get a true picture, we need to look at the proportional rates.
Eighty percent of violent crimes involve an attacker and victim of the same race.
If we divide each population by the number of crimes committed by individuals in that population, we see that there was one anti-black attack for every 94,436 white people, but one anti-white attack for every 59,172 black people. Thus, the rate of black-perpetrated hate crimes against whites is approximately 1.6 times higher than the rate of white-perpetrated hate crimes against blacks.
Looking at hate crimes involving death and rape tells an even starker story. In 1998 five white people were killed in hate crimes, while three black people were killed in the same period. During that year, four women of each race were raped as a result of racial hatred. If these incidents were occurring between the races at equal rates based on their populations, we’d expect to see six times as many blacks killed and raped by whites as the opposite. Yet we see an equal number of rapes and almost twice as many anti-white slayings.
In 1999, according to U.S. Dept. of Justice statistics, there were about 197,679 black-on-white violent crimes compared to about 8,198 white-on-black violent crimes (single-offender victimizations involving completed, as opposed to mere threatened, violence)– more than 20 times as many—and even more remarkably there were about 20,003 black-on-white rapes or sexual assaults (single-offender victimizations), while the number of white-on-black rapes or sexual assaults was somewhere between between 0 and 33. Black-on-white rapes or sexual assaults were at least 600 times as common as the reverse.
Criminal Victimization in United States, 1999 Statistical Tables
In 2006, the incarceration rate in state or federal prison or jail for men was 1,384 per 100,000 residents, for women 134 per 100,000 residents. The rate for white men was 736 per 100,000, for black men 4,789 per 100,000, for Hispanic men 1,862 per 100,000. The rate for white women was 94 per 100,000, for black women 358 per 100,000, and for Hispanic women 152 per 100,000. (i)
Of the 249,400 state prison inmates serving time for drug offenses at year end 2004, 112,500 (45.1%) were black, 51,800 (20.8%) were Hispanic, and 65,900 (26.4%) were white. (ii)
At midyear 2006 more black men (836,800) were in custody in State or Federal prison or local jail than white men (718,100) or Hispanic men (426,900). Black men comprised 41% of the more than 2 million men in custody, and black men age 20 to 29 comprised 15.5% of all men in custody on June 30, 2006. my source, which I have quoted below, and which I am quoting verbatim states “Relative to their numbers in the general population, about 4.8% of all black men were in custody at midyear 2006, compared to about 0.7% of white men and 1.9% of Hispanic men. Overall, black men were incarcerated at 6.5 times the rate of white men. The incarceration rate for black men was highest among black men age 25 to 29. About 11.7% of black males in this age group were incarcerated on June 30, 2006. Across age groups black men were between 5.7 and 8.5 times more likely than white men to be incarcerated.” (iii)
As you read that, you can almost hear the cry, “That is because of racism within the legal system and the fact that more blacks live in poverty and social deprivation!”
Wrong on both counts.
The reality is that politically correct law enforcement bends over backwards to avoid racial profiling, as shown by the shrieks of horror by various senior policemen following the new Arizona law requirements to merely check the legal status of suspects. Meanwhile courts in America go to great lengths not to disadvantage black or Hispanic defendants, whereas statistically, black and mixed race juries are significantly less likely to convict black defendants, especially if the victim was white, than white jurors are in the case of white defendants (iv)
The claim that poverty is the reason why more blacks offend also does not stand up to scrutiny. According to the most recent reliable figures (okay Wikipedia) the population of America stands at around 308,672,000 66% of whom (roughly 203,723,520) are white, 14% (about 43,214,080) are African American and 15% (46,300,800) are Hispanic, the remaining 5% being made up of groups such as Asians, Native Americans and Pacific Islanders.
When it comes to poverty the figures state that “only” 8.2% of the US white population live in poverty, compared to 24.7% of blacks. (v) This statistical imbalance is frequently used by liberals to excuse the higher numerical rates of offending amongst blacks and Hispanics. However, this is entirely misleading, and does not make any sense when you actually look at the ethnic make up of those living in poverty.
8.2% of 203,723,520 means that 16,705,328 white Americans are living in poverty, whereas despite the much quoted higher percentage rate 24.7% of 43,214,080 means that 10,673,877 are living in poverty, a significantly smaller number of people.
If poverty was the key to offending you would expect to see whites committing 16 crimes for every 10 committed by black people, however, outside the whacky parallel universe, as portrayed by CBS, that is not what we see.
Likewise, hate crimes are, to a massively disproportionate degree, something which happens to white people, that truth is merely hidden by legal system which refuses to call such crimes by their true name and by a media which fails to report them.
What we see in America we are seeing here in Europe, yet we are not allowed to say so.
We have reached a point in our society where the truth can not be acknowledged if it does not comply with an ideological narrative, despite the fact that the narrative is a lie. It is the silence of the reporters which gives succour to the lie and imperils its victims, for how many lives could have been saved had they had, at least been warned of the danger?
(i)Source: Sabol, William J., PhD, Minton, Todd D., and Harrison, Paige M., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2006 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, June 2007), NCJ217675, p. 9, Table 14.
(ii)Source: Sabol, William J., PhD, Couture, Heather, and Harrison, Paige M., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2006 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, December 2007), NCJ219416, p. 24, Appendix Table 9.
(iii) Source: Sabol, William J., PhD, Minton, Todd D., and Harrison, Paige M., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2006 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, June 2007), NCJ217675, p. 9.
Use the British statistics with caution, as the commentary on the British statistics is heavily biased against white victims. They desperately want to downplay the white victims and upplay the non-white victims, so they offer cherry-picked analysis and one-sided speculation on why the figures might be wrong, and constantly remind us that non-whites are proportionately more likely to be victims (just in case we might, heaven forbid, start to actually care about our own people). For example, they say that proportionately, the chances for a non-white is 1% and the chances for a white is “less than 1%” – why don’t they say specifically? It’s probably 0.99%. Also, this is looking at victims only. If we look at offenders, non-whites are 10% of the population and commit 51.3% of all race crimes, while whites, the other 90%, only commit 49.7% of the race crimes. This means non-whites are nearly 10 times more likely to commit a race crime than whites.
One report suggested that white people might be more likely to report a crime such as a street robbery carried out by a black person as a racial incident. Firstly, so what? The definition of a racial incident in the U.K. is one in which the victim perceives it to be racial. If the victim perceives it to be racial, then it is. Secondly, this is completely irrelevant speculation because the exact same thing could be said vice versa; non-white people might be more likely to report a crime such as a street robbery carried out by a white person as a racial incident too. This possibility works both ways so cancels itself out.
The BBC then goes on a totally biased self-indulgent addendum against “the far-right” “trying to exploit what it claims as the untold story of racial attacks on white people”. The BBC is supposed to be impartial. Why can’t they just tell us the facts instead of qualifying them by saying “oh, but don’t turn to the nasty old far-right, they’re trying to exploit it”. The BBC should be neutral when it comes to the far-right, they shouldn’t care one way or the other if we all turn to the far-right in our droves.
The BBC then sets up a Straw Man argument where it says “on the National Front website they feature a long list of “The Fallen”, white people they say were killed by non-whites”. They say? The police and the witnesses and the CCTV footage all said too, so why is the BBC saying “they say”, implying that it’s not true? Instead of saying “they say were killed by non-whites”, they could have said “were killed by non-whites”. The Fallen is all sourced from the media reports and ultimately the police. Also, the article was published in 2006, but accessing the NF website in 2012 I can’t find a trace of The Fallen. Searching “The Fallen” brings up The Green Arrow’s The Fallen List. The BBC has a track record of getting basic information about Nationalist parties wrong, eg calling the NF the BNP and vice versa, calling the BNP the British Nationalist Party (no such party), etc. They’re supposed to be impartial professional journalists, they should get the names right.
The BBC then says “Often, however, the crimes have nothing to do with race”. If one of our race has been killed, then it’s to do with our race. Whether or not the offender happened to use racist language while he did it is beside the point. This is a classic Straw Man that multicultis try to draw us into, they essentially argue saying “Oh, but you can’t prove it was explicitly “racist”, so it doesn’t count” – they are trying to force us into their paradigm whereby explicitly “racist” murders are somehow the only murders we should care about. I interpret coming to my country and attacking my people as implicitly racist. But murder is murder. These are our people who have been killed, it doesn’t matter if they said a mean word while they killed them; they killed them nonetheless. So why doesn’t it count? The Fallen is a list of white Britons in their own country killed by non-whites. It doesn’t actually purport to be a list of explicitly “racist” murders, so the BBC is attacking a Straw Man.
“In a number of cases, for instance Ross Parker, relatives of the victims have objected to their names being used”. How is this relevant? Just because their relatives are multicultis doesn’t mean we have to be. Our nation is an extended family, we’re all cousins. Why does the BBC – a supposedly impartial broadcaster – think this information is important to crowbar in?
The Guardian tries desperately to deconstruct the white victims by saying that the white victims “also included those who were Jewish, ‘dark-skinned’ Europeans or gypsies.” – but they mysteriously don’t give us any specifics about this. It could have been 1 victim. Hell, it could have been 0. Also, are these people white or not? These people are the same people who would normally tell us “hey, Jews and gypsies are white too”, and yet here they’re trying to tell us that they’re not white. Anything to deconstruct and undermine our sense of victiminisation. Do they do this for the non-white victims? Do they say “the black victims included Aboriginal Australians” and “the Asian victims included Chinese”? No, they don’t. The implicit message being that Blacks and Asians are allowed to feel victimised, but Whites aren’t. Because Whites are too hard to define, and these white victims might include people aren’t “proper whites” or whatever – we’re definitely not allowed to assume it’s a native Briton. Oh, except when a white commits the racial crime. Then suddenly these precautions no longer apply, and it’s open-season on evil W.A.S.P. racists.
If the Guardian (and liberals generally) want to play this game of “white victims include gypsies and Jews”, then let’s play them at their own game White attackers also include gypsies and Jews (remember the gypsy killer Levi Bellfield?). Unless they want to give us some specifics. But they mysteriously don’t want to give us specifics, they just want to sow doubt and cast aspersions.
It’s also interesting that we’re being warned that “white” includes gypsies and Jews, as if Jews and gypsies aren’t proper whites. Well if they’re not really white, why are they included with the whites? If a White Nationalist was to say that Jews and gypsies aren’t proper white, the response would be “don’t be so ignorant and racist, of course Jews are white – they have white skin!”. Liberals will accept Jews and gypsies as white when it suits them.
So unless they’re going to stop pissing about and give us a specific breakdown, then we have every reason to assume that the white victims are White European Caucasian Gentiles.
And then they tell us that some of the white victims might represent conflict between Scottish/English/Welsh/Irish. These people are all the same race! So these attacks shouldn’t be classed as racial. And if they’re going to mention this, then give us specific numbers. I’m English, and yes I do want to know if an English person has been murdered by a Scottish person. Again, they’re just trying to cast doubt and misdirect.
Anyway, there’s no need to get tricked into a pissing contest about which community is more proportionately attacked in the U.K. This is another Straw Man multicultis always try to tangle us up in. Our native British people are being attacked in our own country, and we have every right to be alarmed about it. Non-indigenous people being attacked more proportionately doesn’t mean the indigenous people are being attacked any less. Gavin Hopley, Charlene Downes, Kriss Donald, Ross Parker, Richard Everitt, Christopher Yates . . . these are real people, our native Britons, and we have every right to care and to protest as loud as we like against being murdered by imports in our own country. If one native Briton is killed by multiculturalism, that’s one too many. Non-whites protest about their victims, and rightfully so. They don’t sit around with calculators working out proportions and statistics to see if they’re “allowed” to be upset – they know they’re upset and they’re not afraid to say so. We shouldn’t be afraid to say so either, regardless of the proportions. Worrying about proportions implies that it’s not our country and we don’t have a special place here – it is, and we do.
So don’t let them cherry-pick “hate crimes” from all the interracial crime. Victimising a race for sexual or economic or entertainment or religious reasons isn’t somehow better than victimising it for “racist” reasons. The race isn’t any less victimised. And don’t let them convince you that because X is only Y% of the total population of Z, that there’s not a problem. Other races being attacked is their problem, and our race being attacked is our problem.
Multicultis will begin by denying the facts. When presented with the facts, they will start trying to excuse and justify the facts. They’ll say things like “it’s because black people are poor/uneducated” etc. As if we ever claimed otherwise? Another Straw Man, assuming that we believe all differences are genetic. Maybe they are genetic, maybe they’re cultural. Maybe they’re both. What difference does it make in the street?
If non-whites victimise us because they’re “poor/uneducated” then that obviously begs the question “why are blacks poor/uneducated?”, which multicultis will predictably ascribe to “racism”, usually with very little concrete proof. It’s especially ridiculous in the case of immigrants who have come from Asia/Africa etc; were there evil white racists keeping them down there too? White people are the victims, and yet it’s white people’s fault. My experience with American multicultis is even worse: they’re so ignorant of the rest of the world that they think black people in Britain are like the black people in America, ie the descendants of slaves from four centuries ago. I’ve honestly had American multicultis tell me that Britain’s black population is disproportionately violent because of slavery, despite the fact that Britain’s contemporary black population arrived as voluntary immigrants in the 1950s. And even if it is because of “racism”, so what? It’s our ancestral homeland, if we don’t want them here and don’t want to employ them, sell houses to them, or whatever excuse the multicultis comes up with, that’s our prerogative, or should be. Violently attacking someone is infinitely worse than simply “being racist”. There are numerous examples on this very website of non-whites viciously attacking whites and then claiming they did it because the white person was being racist. Even if the white person was being racist, so fucking what? Deal with it like a human being. When black person calls me a honky I don’t fly into a rage and beat them.
Why should we care what the reasons are anyway? That might be an interesting topic for the multicultis to ponder, because they’re the ones who want multiculturalism. We don’t, so why should we be concerned? When your daughter is raped and pimped by a Muslim gang, should you give a shit about “social inequalities” and “alienation” that “made” them do it? That’s their problem and their responsibility to deal with. If these people are coming into our country and victimising us – for whatever social reason – then we should stop letting them into the country and deport any that we legally can.
We don’t sit around studying the root-causes of why snakes bite us. Maybe people who say snakes bite us because of genetics are specieist. Maybe snakes bite us because of social inequalities. Maybe they bite us because they feel a deep injustice about when St. Patrick banished them from Ireland. Maybe it’s because the snakes need a few generations to get back on their feet after the snake-charming we used to inflict on them. Maybe snakes don’t bite humans because they hate humans, maybe we’re just easy targets for the snake who feels economically and culturally disadvantaged in our house. Plus, proportionate to populations, snakes actually bite more animals than humans. And humans kill snakes too remember!
Fact is, snakes bite us, so we don’t let them live in our house. Problem solved.