COLOUR OF CRIME NOT CONSPIRACY
Though, over a generation, the race traitors of the peecee political elite and MSM had made it publicly unquestionable in America that any excess of Black criminality was the result of Whie racism, an updated survey by veteran economic analyst Edward Rubenststein (The Color of Crime, 2016 Revised Edition) made clear that stark differences continued as long maintained by Art Jensen, Phil Rushton and Jared Taylor as Black > Hispanic > White > East Asian – with cops notably failing to vent their supposed animosities against the USA’s Orientals. Steve Sailer summarized Rubinstein’s findings in Taki Magazine (23 iii) but a particular refutation of police bias was made neatly by Rubinstein himself:
"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"
TRUMP ZOOMS TO SCORE
In the aftermath of the Brussels horrors (34 killed and hundreds injured by ISICK), America’s Donald Trump was the first and only Western politician to respond practically to the Mueslie atrocity, proposing surveillance of Muslie areas and especially of mosques (Daily Mail, 22 iii). Monitoring might not be as reassuring as enabling mosques to to demonstrate their contributions to aiding victims of jihad, or as banning unkempt beards and slitty veils; or as salutary as closing one mosque for each person killed by jihadists, banning concentrations of Mueslis, banning Arabic, forbidding the import of Mueslie wives and sterilizing welfare-dependent mothers illiterate in English.
But, assuming surveillance would include communications and finances, it would be a big improvement on the fatuous waffle of peecee politicians and MSM.* DT also supported the use of waterboarding with “radical Islamic terrorists” and condemned US President Obarmy for declining to cut short his high-jinks holiday in Cuba so as to organize teams of New York cops to explain to Europeans how the policing of crime- and drugs-filled ghettoes should be done.
* An honourable exception was the usually much-admired former editor of the Daily Mirror, Piers Morgan – 23 iii. Ditto the Mail’s ‘controversial’ Katie Hopkins – 23 iii. And DT especially won the support of the London Times for surveillance of imams (24 iii). Emboldened, perhaps, DT went on to say he would not rule out dropping battlefield nukes on ISICK – thus making up for eight years of casualess on the part of Peace Nobelist Obarmy (D. Telegraph, 25 iii).
Further, DT threatened he would cut supplies of military toys to Saudi unless that kingdom got its act together to fight ISICK. He achieved the accolade of being burned in effigy by Mexicans on Easter Sunday.
As the Christian holy days of Easter (celebrated in Britain chiefly by public ‘servants’) licensed columnists to reflect on the state of the West’s run-down religion, the Telegraph’s Jemima Lewis (25 iii) was drawn to remark the greater appeal of Christianity to women than to men – a sex difference not found in Jewry or Islam (and traditionally less in Catholicism than in Protestantism).
Plausibly, JL noted that early Christianity had opposed the ‘chauvinistic’ ways of the Roman Empire, allowing/encouraging girls to marry late or not at all and freeing them from demands by Roman fathers to abort or kill unwanted children [even up to age 35] and to have easy and cheap divorces if not outright polygamy. In short, females were to be ‘looked after’ while offering only loosely supervised faithfulness in return.
The West’s 20th century ‘welfare’ states actually beefed up this ‘protection’ of females, throwing in expensive health care throughout the grand old ages which women reached and high-sounding education for their children; and men accepted taxation costs since they were given vast sexual freedoms previously unknown in even the most pagan worlds.
Any problem? Yes: the expense was terrific and no-one – male or female – wanted the additional expense of fighting for a system the rightness or efficacy of which they could scarcely articulate. Probably it was only the collapse of socialist welfarism beneath its own burdensome excesses that would lead men to resume their provider roles – and to pester dominies for theologies and histories of Christianity to match.
At some point voting would have to correspond to contributions (‘No representation without taxation!’) – thus allowing a greater influence of intelligence in politics, as Jesus surely had in mind in his largely good-humoured challenges to Jewish legalism.
Comments? Email Chris Brand. -- CV for Chris Brand. -- Some history.