Search Box

Saturday, May 23, 2015

Statistics never mentioned by the mainstream media.

Each year, on average, police in the US kill twice as many whites as blacks.

Although there are virtually no black woman who are sexually assaulted by white men each year, on average there are over twenty thousand white women sexually assaulted by black men.

Blacks who committed violent crimes in 2010 -- a typical year as far as these types of statistics go -- chose white victims 47.7% of the time, whereas whites who committed violent crimes targeted blacks only 3.9% of the time.

The rate of suicide among whites is consistently three times as high as it is among blacks.

A surprising 35.4% of women living as part of a lesbian couple have been victims of domestic violence, compared to only 20.4% of women living with a male partner.

American blacks have a life expectancy of 75.5 years, less than the white figure of 79.1, a fact sometimes used to illustrate the effects of racism in this country. Yet Hispanics have a life expectancy of 82.9, and Asians 86.6.

Females born in this country have an average life expectancy of 81, vs. 76 for men.

Whites have an average household income of $54,857, whereas blacks average $35,341, another statistic often cited to illustrate the racist nature of our country. Yet Asian-Americans average $68,088.

Although 11.2% of the homicides in this country are committed by women, women constitute only 2.9% of those actually executed for their crimes.

Now, imagine if any of these statistics were reversed. We'd hear them cited constantly as proof of what a racist, sexist society we live in.

But, they don't fit the narrative favored by the media.

So, instead, a deafening silence.

(In fact, some of the statistics above would indicate that we do live in a racist, sexist society, except that the racism and sexism flow in the other direction.)


Anonymous said...

I love statistics, the fact that numbers don't lie.


John Craig said...

Birdie --
Well, statistics CAN be manipulated, or cherry picked, or taken out of context, but the ones I just presented are straightforward enough.

Steven said...

I was quoting some similar stats today on the guardian website. A journalist wrote that there was an ongoing onslaught against black life, so I pointed out that there are more than twice as many black on white homicides than white on black.

Why do the media pursue this agenda so strongly? Are they just stupid, true believers? Scared to seem racist?

It's irresponsible not to provide a balanced perspective with an objective look at the stats, particularly relating to police killings. Instead they are pouring fuel on the fire.

John Craig said...

Steven --
The answer seems to be, a little of all those things you mentioned. But in the end the net result is that they are incredibly misleading and dishonest.

And it's why fewer and fewer people trust them. Thank goodness for the internet, where the truth is available if you look for it.

Steven said...

You've mentioned before that you think while the journalists are true believers, the high up people in the media are consciously pursuing this agenda, knowing it to be misleading. Is that an accurate description of what you think and if so, what are their motives?

John Craig said...

Steven --
Your guess is as good as mine.

Remnant said...

"11.2% of the homicides in this country are committed by women"

A little more for thought on this point: assuming that women and men each make up around 50% of the population, that means men are around nine times more murderous than women. Crime statistics have shown that blacks are around eight times more murderous than whites (itself probably an underestimation of the difference given that Hispanics are thrown in with whites in the perps category).

Thus, blacks are as more likely to commit murder than whites as men are than women. I don't know about you, but hearing it in those terms is shocking to me. White men are like "women" compared to blacks in the murder department.

This is also an interesting comparison given that everyone essentially accepts that men are more naturally violent than women, yet the same proposition with regard to different races is seen as controversial despite the magnitude of the difference being very similar. Why isn't anyone investigating the "root causes" of men being more violent, or explaining it as resulting from women's oppressing men(after all isn't that the reason given why blacks commit more crime than whites?)

John Craig said...

Remnant --
You and Jared Taylor are the only people I've heard make that point, that blacks are as much more violent than whites as men are than women. And you're exactly right, why don't people talk about the "root causes" of male violence -- because doing so would be just plain silly, since obviously it's just their nature. And yet…...

People need to have more familiarity with these statistics. Imagine if the black rate of suicide were three times that of whites. All the editorial writers at the NY Times and elsewhere would be wringing their hands and fretting about how this proved that we live in a racist society, where blacks are driven to despair by the racism they face every day.

Or imagine if female murderers were given the death penalty at a rate much higher than male murderers are. Would that not be taken as evidence of the horrible plague of sexism which besets this nation?

And so on…..

Remnant said...

Well, it felt like an original thought when I had it... :) I'm sure I read it at AmRen sometime although I did not recall that when I made the comment. I wonder if Griffe de Lion also discussed it at somepoint? Wouldn't be surprised.

It really is a powerful comparison. As another example, sometimes blacks (or the semi-official black spokesmen) make a kind of "negative spiral" argument, similar to the "tyranny of low expectations argument with regard to academic performance, that blacks are violent because whites call them violent and this leads to further anger and further violence etc etc. These types of arguments are taken seriously by the mainstream. Yet if you tried a similar argument regarding the male-female "violence gap", it would sound absurd as soon as it left one's lips. "Men commit more murder than women because you mean girls keep calling us violent."

As far as the statistics getting out there, the older I get, the less convinced I am that that is how people become convinced. Winning arguments need good rhetoric (as opposed to good facts) and "sexy" proponents: the race realist position would probably gain more from someone like, say, George Clooney adopting it than would all the statistics in the world.

John Craig said...

Remnant --
It WAS an original thought: just because someone else, some other time, had the same thought doesn't mean that you didn't think of it yourself. I try to stick by a rule on this blog never to say anything I've heard elsewhere, or at least presented the same way elsewhere, but I'm sure that the vast majority of my thoughts have already been had -- and voiced -- by other people without my having stumbled across them.

Agreed, it is a powerful comparison. There are a lot of liberal arguments which when held up to the light of day, or paraphrased in another context, appear utterly ridiculous. If you grid to tell a group of dog breeders that the only reason Australian sheep dogs are more intelligent than Chihuahuas is because they were raised in a more stimulating intellectual environment, or that the only reason pit bulls are more aggressive than Golden Retrievers is because they are expected to be, you'd be laughed out of the room. But, the liberals persist…..

You're probably right about the PR battle, but I still think that wider dissemination of these types of statistics would change peoples' thinking.

Anonymous said...

John--It's criminal that these stats are not openly front and center for all to see--and digest and accept at face value. This reminds me of Albert Schweitzer, nobel prize winner, who said that blacks are a "sub-race" in which they are foundationally inferior to whites (on average) in terms of intelligence and they tend towards violence. If this is true then I would say that racial differences are not "racism" as we know it but simply a matter of biology and maybe evolution. That said, this does not justify discriminating based on color as each person, black, white, or yellow can work hard and have an equal opportunity to grow and evolve-and prosper. These factoids seem to be the 1000 lb gorilla in the room that no one wants to admit to. In this context I can understand why blacks are angry at the world, but who's fault is that? All of which begs the question: does white privilege exist? I don't think so. Whites are simply much less likely to commit crimes and are treated accordingly, in general. Blacks commit the majority of crimes so of course they are going to be targeted much more often when whites (or Asians, etc). Brian

John Craig said...

Brian --
Yes, I've heard Schweitzer's comments about race, and he was someone who dedicated his life to helping blacks in Africa.

I agree with everything you just said. Everyone should be given an equal opportunity. But those facts ARE the elephant in the room, but somehow we've arrived at a state of affairs where you're not considered moral if you acknowledge them.