Black Crime and Its Jewish Apologists

The English county of Kent has a proud history when it comes to invasions. It’s said that the people of Kent adopted the motto Invicta (“Undefeated”) following the Norman invasion of England, because the spirited resistance of its Anglo-Saxon peasantry deterred the Normans from attempting to gain full control over the east of the county. Once London was reached, the Normans ignored most of East Kent, due mainly to the fact this cohesive community of peasants attacked them at every opportunity. Kent then became a semi-autonomous County Palatine under William the Conqueror’s half-brother, Odo of Bayeux, with special powers otherwise reserved for the unruly counties bordering Wales and Scotland. It’s now almost one thousand years since the brave resistance of the Kentish peasants and, in the interval, something rotten, something deeply diseased, seems to have entered the psyche and culture of this most traditional English county. Just a few days ago, the area once described by Henry VIII as the “Garden of England” became the Mogadishu of England as scores of whooping Africans clashed in vehicles, and poured through the streets with machetes. The fact that blade-wielding Africans now stalk where the all-conquering Normans once feared to tread is just a lesser symptom of the general decline of modern Britain under multiculturalism, and the nation’s ongoing descent into a maelstrom of Black violence and Muslim sexual sadism.

The Garden of England, 2019

According to Merriam-Webster, the phrase “a stab in the dark” refers to “a guess that is based on very little or no information or evidence.” The British mainstream media is currently stabbing in the dark about why there have recently been so many literal stabs in the dark – because England, and London in particular, is currently experiencing another of its spasmodic outbreaks of what has been euphemistically called “knife crime.” “Knife crime” in Britain, like “gun crime” in the United States, is a phrase loaded with a racial meaning that everyone strenuously avoids admitting the existence of. According to the BBC, out of 44 British police forces that have submitted statistics, 42 have recorded a rise in knife crime since 2011. In London, the national “knife crime” capital, it was found that “young black and minority ethnic teenage boys and men were disproportionately affected, as both victims and perpetrators.” In one of the most horrific incidents of recent weeks, a crazed Ugandan, Jason Kakaire, went on a vicious stabbing spree that saw four apparently random and unprovoked stabbings in 14 hours, including one attack that severed the spinal column of one on the victims, resulting in permanent paralysis. You will search in vain for an image of Kakaire, who has been described by the media merely as having “short dark hair, light facial hair, and a grey tracksuit.” Only his last name, almost exclusive to Uganda, gives away the fact these crimes are part of the broader pattern of African violence in the new, vibrant, England.

The media-government-academic rhetorical “stab in the dark” about the causes behind this pattern is multifaceted. Each proposed guess about the causes of Black criminality is linked to the others only via mutual avoidance of “knife crime’s” biological, racial imperatives. Superficial discussions about “Black culture,” gangsta rap, and absent fathers feature to some extent at the fringes of the mainstream, but never in a way that asks why, wherever Blacks come to live, and no matter how much money and support they are given, they invariably and repeatedly regress to the same pattern of broken families, violent crime laced with extreme brutality, primitive gang cultures, dismissal from schools, unemployment, and extremely low socio-economic achievement.

In the most extreme cases, guesswork is abandoned and malicious, insidious lies are instead put forward. The Guardian’s half-Black, half-Jewish columnist, Afua Hirsch, is the best example I’ve encountered in this regard. She combines a a Black tendency toward psychopathic self-aggrandisement with a Jewish love for theorizing the host population into self-destruction. For Hirsch, there is no Black crime problem, and it’s racist and bigoted to claim there is. Arbitrarily tossing aside the meaning of “disproportionately affected,” she proclaims “most violent crime is conducted by white people and the majority of stabbing victims in Britain are white.” Hirsch doesn’t feel the need to provide any sources for her statement, though one suspects they are more subversive than just another rhetorical stab in the dark. Government statistics show that two thirds of young “knife crime” offenders in London are “Black or minority ethnic,” and that Black and Mixed Race individuals utterly dominate the victims of crime statistics. One suspects that Hirsch knows this, just as strongly as one suspects that Hirsch is deliberately lying because she hates the native British.

Hirsch, who has shamelessly and arrogantly waxed lyrical about the “meaninglessness” of British identity, has described Britain as “a shameful coloniser,” “alientating,” and “a hostile environment” for ethnic aliens, and has further opined:

The idea that British “culture” is somehow opposite to the presence of ethnic minorities is a historical nonsense. Many of our most iconic cultural traditions are the products of immigration – such as fish and chips, an innovation of Jewish refugees from Portugal. Roads and cities were built by the Romans, banks were founded by Huguenots, a royal household established by a broad cross-section of European aristocracy. There were Africans in Britain, it’s now widely accepted, before there were any “English.”

Yes, that’s right, the latest narrative is that Africans were in Britain before the English, even though it isn’t really “widely accepted” as Hirsch claims, and is quite at odds with genetic and linguistic research suggesting Germanic peoples and languages were present before the Roman invasion of Britain brought a handful of North African troops to the island. All of this is, in any event, utterly irrelevant in light of the fact that, as the New Scientist put it, “the basis for the genetic make-up of all white Britons” lies in just 17 DNA clusters that arrived in the British Isles at the end of the Ice Age from northern Germany, France, and Belgium. By any measurement, the English, Welsh, Scots, and Irish are the indigenous peoples of Britain and Ireland, and any attempt to distort this fact to excuse the horrors of contemporary multiculturalism should be considered an act of extreme political aggression accompanied by inescapably violent intentions. Hirsch undermines the historical existence of the British peoples in order to undermine their contemporary existence, and she undermines their contemporary existence in order to smooth the path to the Grand Replacement she awaits with obvious and sinister elation.

Rejecting the idea that Blacks are less capable of behavioral self-control or forming stable families, Hirsch writes:

In direct contrast to the rightwing commentators who exploit [Black crime] to pursue their poisonous agendas, there are people who have been researching and writing about the “ecology” of violence in our cities for decades, making sense of what we are often told is “senseless”. They have found young people living in an “alternative cognitive landscape” in which you stab first and ask questions later; where distrust of the authorities and hostile strangers results in people – and especially young men – arming themselves and acting in aggressive and threatening ways in order to pre-empt attacks.

Black Crime, Jewish Criminologists

At this point, the texture of Hirsch’s commentary started to bear familiar hallmarks. The well-read “anti-Semite” will recognise the blaming of the host population and the swift descent into abstraction, which act as a form of rhetorical “spoor” that leads ultimately to the predictable final destination of one’s quarry. As one begins looking into the “people who have been researching and writing about the “ecology” of violence in our cities for decades,” and the development of apologetics for Black gang crime more generally, one ultimately knows what one will find, and there are no surprises here. The concept of the “alternative cognitive landscape” as being behind chronic Black gang violence, as opposed to biological predispositions, was pioneered by James Short, the friend and protege of Albert K. Cohen (1918–2014), an incredibly influential Jewish sociologist who, in Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gang (1955), advanced the idea that Black gang crime was simply the result of frustration at disadvantages and inequalities, and an adaptation to a pre-existing exclusion from society (what he termed “reaction formation”). It was a theory only a Jew could have conceived, being little more than a crude regurgitation of the grievances of Jewish ambition and the laments of their outsider status. One biographical entry on Cohen, from Fifty Key Thinkers in Criminology (2010), explains that he experienced a series of rejections for graduate posts following his graduation from Harvard, something Cohen believed was motivated by anti-Semitism. In fact, the editors of Fifty Key Thinkers in Criminology remark on his discussion of gangs: “Such a situation must have been precisely that of Cohen’s. Indeed, when he writes of “reaction formation” it is easy to see the mirror image of his own life and the costs of social mobility [emphasis in original].”1

Albert K. Cohen

Since Cohen’s work in the 1950s, a steady stream of highly influential Jewish sociologists and criminologists have stepped forward to project their own similar “reaction formations” onto the nature of Black criminality, alternately absolving Blacks and condemning the “privileged” and “exclusionary” White majority. Thus, when Afua Hirsch claims that the only reason Blacks can’t form stable families in Britain is because their “ancestors were forcibly prevented from forming strong families by British slavery over generations,” or that “high activity levels and poor eating habits” are two reasons Blacks are stabbing, raping and shooting across Britain, she isn’t just uttering desperate nonsense but is borrowing from established, even respected, anti-White, Jewish sociological narratives.

The majority of Jewish apologists for Black criminality are not Liberal “true believers” in the innocence of Blacks, but rather the purveyors of a far more cynical apologetics. They know that Blacks are disproportionately violent and generally unconducive to a stable and peaceful society; they just think Whites have a duty to “adjust” to this reality. A good example in this regard is Alfred Blumstein, the incredibly influential President of the American Society of Criminology. In 2014, Blumstein wrote in a piece for the New York Times:

I wish it were otherwise, but I am concerned that racial tension associated with crime and law enforcement will be with us for a long time … That problem is exacerbated by the disproportionate involvement of minorities in serious crimes. According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, the per capita arrest rate for robbery of blacks is about 7.3 times that of whites and about 5.9 times for murder. It would be hard to attribute all of that to racial profiling.

So far, so good, but rather than conceding that multiculturalism and desegregation might put Whites at great risk from violent Black behavior, Blumstein comes to a different conclusion altogether:

We should try, through better selection and training, to purge any vestiges of racism from all those involved in law enforcement, and I have little doubt that we have seen progress in those areas. Nevertheless, as long as there is racism in the society, some of that will always seep through.

For Jewish activists like Blumstein, the primary problem of Black criminality is not the danger it poses to Whites but its potential to arouse “racism” and a White reaction, and the primary response to Black criminality should not be to tackle crime and its causes but to “purge any vestiges of racism.”

One of Blumstein’s key positions relates to “stop-and-frisk” and “racial profiling” tactics employed by police forces. Despite acknowledging the origin of a disproportionate level of violent crime, he worries that “stop-and-frisk patterns can become excessive and too often crudely and insensitively administered.” Opposition to this form of police control over Black criminality has been common from the Left, and from Jewish activists in particular, who have portrayed racial profiling not as an effective means of fighting crime but a form of oppressive, racist, social control. It is interesting that both major political sponsors of the End Racial Profiling Bill (2011) are gun-grabbing Jews, Steve Cohen and Ben Cardin, and it was Cardin who introduced the legislation in February 2017.

Legislation like the End Racial Profiling Bill is, in turn, based on the voluminous productions of various criminal justice think tanks, many of which employ Jewish academics and intellectuals in key roles. An excellent example is the Urban Institute, based in Washington D.C. The Urban Institute has a Jewish President, Sarah Rosen Wartell, and 30% of its Board of Trustees is Jewish. The senior fellow in the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute is yet another Jew, Akiva Liberman, who specializes in developing “crime and justice policies” that lead to softer treatment of Blacks and add to the narrative of “oppressive” White racism. In one of his “research documents,” Liberman admits that “African Americans have a unique, well-documented role in the history of US crime and justice,” but only because of oppression: “unequal protection under the law and unequal enforcement of the law, the exclusion of blacks from juries, the use of extrajudicial capital punishment—lynching—during the Reconstruction and Jim Crow eras, and the overrepresentation on death row of black offenders with white victims.” The problem with Black crime, argues Liberman, isn’t that it’s dangerous to Whites, but that “implicit stereotypic associations between violence and blacks in particular are long-standing in American society.”

Akiva Liberman

Liberman’s apologetic contortions would be comical if they weren’t so malicious. He writes mournfully that “Boys and young men of color are subject to more surveillance by police in their neighborhoods, partly by virtue of more often living in high-crime neighborhoods than their white counterparts.” That’s right, Blacks just happen to live in high-crime neighborhoods, and shouldn’t be penalized with high levels of surveillance just because the soil they live on has a mysterious tendency to produce criminality. After all, it’s not like the Black youths are themselves committing the crime and therefore need to be placed under surveillance. One of Liberman’s implied solutions to Black criminality is to push Black criminals into White, crime-free areas, under the pretext that such environments will reduce the chance of Black offending. He writes that “Neighborhoods with high concentrations of economic deprivation, residential instability, and family disruption—which are overwhelmingly neighborhoods of color—provide an ecological niche [see Hirsch above] for crime to flourish.” What he’s really admitting here is that Blacks, when left exclusively to their own devices, undergo an inevitable process of social decline — that it concentrates and “increases the number of motivated, would-be offenders.” In and of itself, the ecological explanation for Black criminality has some validity. The greater the concentration of Blacks in a given geographic area, the more likely it is that the area will be affected by crime. The problem is that Jewish activists like Albert Cohen, Afua Hirsch, Alfred Blumstein, Steve Cohen, Ben Cardin, and Akiva Liberman are unanimous in implying that Whites, rather than racial biology, are to blame for the development of the ecology of Black criminality.

Hand in hand with blaming Whites for Black criminality is the development of theories blaming police intervention for Black criminality, which are then carried into the mainstream media for wider dissemination. Jewish academics involved in the development and advancement of such theories include Berkeley criminologist Franklin Zimring (see his When Police Kill, 2017), George Washington University criminologist Ronald Weitzer (see his Race and Policing in America, 2006), Morehead State University criminologist Rebecca S. Katz (who has argued that “young men of color are victimized by systemic institutionalized racism within the criminal justice system”), Israeli George Mason University criminologist David Weisburd (see his Race and the Likelihood of Arrest, 2018), University of Pittsburgh criminologist Jon Hurwitz (see his Perception and Prejudice: Race and Politics in the United States, 1998, and his Justice in America: The Separate Realities of Blacks and Whites, 2010), and University of Maine sociologists and co-ethnics Steven Barkan and Steve F. Cohn (see their 1994 effort “Racial Prejudice and Support for the Death Penalty by Whites”).

Many of these ideas and arguments derive ultimately from what Herbert Marcuse declared was an “emancipatory mode” of thinking about crime, whereby crime itself is seen as less important than “many different dimensions of discrimination, injustice, and oppression operating specifically within the criminal justice system or within the broader structures of what we call ‘the system of social control’.”2 This thinking, in turn, gave rise to a school of thought in the 1950s that became known as “the new criminologists” in which criminology was diverted by influential Jewish academics into the critique of society rather than the study of crime and criminals. At the forefront of this movement was Alvin Ward Gouldner (1920–1980), a Brooklyn Jewish sociologist, and one-time President of the (heavily Jewish) Society for the Study of Social Problems, who later became the subject of the interesting 2015 biography Confronting Gouldner: Sociology and Political Activism (Brill). Gouldner is perhaps most famous for his line “The pimp, so to speak, is just another form of salesman” — a consummate degenerate. After completing his Master’s degree at Columbia University in 1945, Gouldner worked as a research sociologist under Marie Jahoda, working on the “Studies in Prejudice” series directed by the members of the Frankfurt School in exile and funded largely by the American Jewish Committee.3 Gouldner, and via his activism, “the new criminologists,” are not just directly linked to the Frankfurt School, but also to the 1940s Jewish takeover of the study of mass communications that I explored recently. Gouldner’s biographer notes (p.99):

By the mid-1940s and fresh on the heels of the end of World War II and the defeat of the Nazis, Frankfurt School exile Max Horkheimer’s Department of Scientific Research and Program Evaluation at Columbia University was developing an active research agenda concerned with authoritarianism and prejudice, especially as it related to the sort of virulent anti-Semitism culminating in the Holocaust. The leading consultant sociologist for the AJC was Paul Lazarsfeld, and he sometimes recommended staff members from his own Bureau of Applied Social Research to work on behalf of the various research projects connected with the AJC. Gouldner was one of the young sociologists recommended to work at the AJC. Gouldner’s immersion in activist politics during this time was congenial with the scholarly work he was pursuing at Columbia University.

Alvin Ward Gouldner

Ultimately, therefore, the ideas that feature in the Black crime apologetics of Afua Hirsch are linked, in an unbroken chain, to the joint efforts of the Frankfurt School and the American Jewish Committee to perform a radical critique of White society and undermine White homogeneity.


I think it’s important to finish on the note that the Judaic undermining of White responses to crime isn’t just coming from an explicit “Jewish Left.” It’s carried out across the political spectrum, even undermining traditionally conservative principles on law and order. An excellent present-day example is the organization Right on Crime. Right on Crime is a Texas-based think tank claiming to offer a “conservative approach to criminal justice: fighting crime, supporting victims, and protecting taxpayers.” It proposes to “gain support for criminal justice reforms within the American conservative movement by sharing research and policy ideas, mobilizing conservative leaders, and by raising public awareness.” At first glance, this looks and sounds good, but Right on Crime is led by two “anti-racial profiling” Jewish criminologists, Derek M. Cohen and Marc Levin, and every one of the organization’s policy positions suggests that the group is actually designed to subvert the “tough on crime” approach normal to conservatism. Among other things, the group lobbies for less laws, the release of criminal drug addicts (among whom Blacks are radically overrepresented) from prison, and less harsh prison sentences for criminals more generally. Cohen and Levin wrap their essentially Liberal approach to crime in “conservative” clothing simply by appealing to the desire of unsophisticated Cash Conservatives to get “value for their tax dollars.” And it’s working. Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Rick Perry and Rand Paul are just some of the dupes who agree with these “right wing” Jews that conservatism just means lower taxes. They have signed up to Right on Crime’s “Statement of Principles” in the deranged belief that its better to release hundreds of thousands of Black drug dealers onto the streets because such a policy might save the prisons a little money in the short term. The end result of the policies of “Right on Crime” will be exactly the same result from the policies of the leftist Akiva Liberman — more Black criminals on the streets, more Blacks in White neighborhoods, more chaos, more drugs, and more death.

Derek Cohen and Marc Levin: “Right” on Crime

In trying to unpack some of the garbage proffered by Afua Hirsch, I’ve tried to offer you a little more than a mere “stab in the dark,” but there is only so much room to name just a handful of the many individuals working together to advance harmful theories that place Whites in danger while simultaneously blaming them for that danger. What is presented here is hopefully enough to point out the major issues at play, and to suggest further avenues of research.

1, K. Hayward & S. Maruna, Fifty Key Thinkers in Sociology (New York: Routledge, 2010), p.111.

2 See I. Taylor, “Crime and Social Criticism,” in Social Justice, Vol. 26, No.2, pp. 150-167 (151).

3 J. J. Chriss, Confronting Gouldner: Sociology and Political Activism (Brill, 2015), 99.


42 replies
    • Kilo 4/11
      Kilo 4/11 says:

      Mr. Clayton, that link to Brian Levin provides quite a few trails to other, even more interesting folks. Especially in the counterterrorism, political psychology and cyber crime fields.

  1. ChilledBee
    ChilledBee says:

    “Edmonton stabbing victim paralysed after spinal cord severed in ‘random’ attack”
    Here we go again with the “random attack” slant. Reminds me of another excellent piece that was done here on the murder of a chef and father of 5, who was murdered for the simple reason that the food was taking too long. Off the 5 assailants went in their $75,000 Cadillac Escalade. Again “It was a random dispute that went tragically wrong,” No, it was an act of extreme violence committed by a savage.

    • pterodactyl
      pterodactyl says:

      There was a piece in TOO a few weeks go about this.

      ‘Random’ is a word like ‘unusual’ or ‘unlucky’ as if it could happen to any one of us, and the black man was just the person who was standing there in the queue just like you or I might be, when a series of unlucky events came together and he was unlucky enough to be in the centre of it. Like the hot weather making people feel bad-tempered, the extra long food queues that day due to a birthday party, the way he accidentally brought his gun, and perhaps someone slammed a door and this meant he misheard a word and thought someone had disrespected him when in fact they had not, so the slammed door was partly to blame.

      It is like a car crashing and saying how unlucky it was that a few things happening together caused the crash – the rain, the bad lighting, the angle of the bend, and the argument an hour before with his girlfriend that made the driver take some drugs and then drive at high speed.

      It is actually technically true that if any one of these factors had not been present then the crash would indeed not have happened.

      This method of describing what happened is used in order ti attempt to minimise the significance of one of the factors – the way the criminal behaves.

  2. Curmudgeon
    Curmudgeon says:

    I would like to add a couple of points that support Mr. Joyce’s arguments, but are non-racial. First is the contention that moving Blacks from high crime (Black) areas, to lower crime (White) areas would have a positive influence on the Blacks. The City of Glasgow thought exactly the same thing when it was planning the “urban renewal” of the infamous Gorbals area in the mid 1950s. A decade later they found the exact opposite had happened. The criminality and violence, which had been much higher in the Gorbals than the rest of the city, was now higher in the areas of the city whither the Gorbals populations had been re-located. So much for Jewish socialogical theory.
    The second point is the notion that Black “ancestors were forcibly prevented from forming strong families by British slavery over generations”. Apparently Black and Arab slavery of Blacks had no effect on their ability to form strong families. That is why places like Sudan and Somalia are so stable. Similarly, the Whites who were enslaved by the Ottoman Empire, which included Arabs and Blacks, weren’t prevented from forming strong families. The logical conclusion is that for the millenia that Ottomans were enslaving Europeans, the Ottomans were benevolent slave masters.
    As an aside, I recall visiting a cousin in suburban Detroit about 30 years ago. He had been transferred from Chicago and worked near the waterfront. He took me on a “tour” of the area. He commented positively on the wide streets, high telephone/electric power poles, and architecture, noting that the city was built for heavy industry. As we got to the outer edges of the Black areas, he pointed to pregnant teenage girls pushing stroller with an infant and asked how that girl was ever going to have a chance of getting out of the ghetto. He also pointed to all of the storefronts with rollershutters and bars over windows and said those were not there to keep us out, they were to keep the bruthas and sistas out. At the time, the bars and shutters were uncommon in suburban areas.
    All of the society’s to blame, pile of rotting bovine excrement, never addresses the issue that people committing anti-social behaviour, violent or otherwise, have a choice.

    • Robert wisdom
      Robert wisdom says:

      ‘never addresses the issue that people committing anti-social behaviour, violent or otherwise, have a choice’

      Of course every free, sane, non brain damaged adult has agency but your concluding point elides over a crucial difference between blacks and Whites. People who are less intelligent are by their very nature less free- those who are unable to predict the outcome of thier choices are less able to make good ones (abstract thinking is required to have a grasp of cause and effect relationships and below a certain iq level people are not able to grasp these). When you combine lesser black intelligence with impaired impulse control and higher tostesterone it becomes clear that the level of self control required to function in a White society is missing in most blacks.

  3. Alfred
    Alfred says:

    BROWN creatures are most violent. Back in the 1980s Guinness Book of Records had Mexico City as the #1 Murder capital of the world.

    REALITY is that people of color are MORE VIOLENT than Whites and that INCLUDES the Japanese.
    Yeah, the Japanese, who have NO GUNS, are MORE violent than White males in the USA.
    And Dr Harris found that the ENGLISH who had little access to firearms were MORE violent than US White males who owned virtually all the guns in the USA.
    Any interested reader can check that Japanese violence in Anthropologist Marvin Harris’ book, originally titled AMERICA NOW back in 1981.
    It was later republished with a different name.

    Dr Joyce’s article about gun control should also alert one to what the End Game is for Whites. The Bolsheviks disarmed the Russians and then as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said they slaughtered 66 million Russian Christians. SIXTY SIX MILLION,

    • Floda
      Floda says:

      When you say Bolsheviks, you really mean Jews, sure there were a few Goys who went along to get along, but Jews were front and center, they were the vanguard just as they are today. For thousands of years we Gentiles have been able to get our act together and expel the Jew when his behavior and damage to our people became intolerable, most recently in a proud National Socialist Germany. This time however I fear we appear to have finally lost our spirit, we are beaten, they have won, they have done it through their control of the means of communication and entertainment. God help us.

      • pterodactyl
        pterodactyl says:

        The left and their allies are only winning at present because the Western people are still rich and pampered. So they do not think of bigger issues such as their leaders inviting in the 3rd world, and instead the people are still in ‘internal-tribe mode’ and this makes them vote for the party that they feel favours one white subgroup at the expense of other white subgroups. In other words their minds are focused on internal conflict within the white groups and they do not have the mental capacity to see the bigger picture.

        When the people are no longer rich and pampered, like the Germans after WWI, then the people will think differently and it will no longer be easy for the politicians and media to persuade the people to follow the current anti-white culture that is being given to them by the media and schools.

        When this moment arrives, all our problems can easily be stopped and reversed, and without even much conflict, as the newcomers actually prefer their own countries and are only here for the money. Money lured them here and money can lure them back. All it takes is for the indigenous to WANT it to happen, and at present they do not want it to happen, or at least, not to the extent that they will actually vote for it to happen.

        It will also be instructive to observe how whites react in Sweden and S.Africa when the anti-white politics and persecution reaches the next level.

        Another positive is that less and less these days do we see whites wanting to resurrect or maintain past white versus white feuds eg Britain vs France, or Britain Vs US, or US vs Russia, however there seems no decline in some antagonism eg Irish against English, even though the Irish are due to become a white minority as soon as 2040 (Stefan Molyneux).

  4. says:

    Educating Whites —or any other sub-group or group collective, the global commoner for that matter, is a moron’s game. The technique is always simple: redundancy and repeats, of a simple message. The author of the above piece is no less guilty, and we are afraid that since that message is redundantly reproduced by others is wrong on top of it’s omnipresence: “It’s the Jews, and the solution is that you Whites understand this”, (as if understanding would mean usefulness), and then reverting to the systemics of your societies to prevail as a tool for change. Nothing much comes of it, by mere psychology of the masses, but venting steam, beneficiary to more dominance of the current power balance.

    The simple message should be this: “It’s us, Whites, who tolerate our sold-out elites to a minuscule Jew minority, we outsource our media and political activist, militant, tasks to …Jews, let them do our bidding, and worse, our establishment elect and co-opted, our patriarchs caste, is a skeleton of decay”.

    That logically and embeddedly, asks of course —for action, other then words. Maybe out of the “public intellectual” (itself a Jewish cocoction, Noam Chomsky the prototype) reach and risk tolerance. The dare is in getting thrown of “tweeter”, that is the first league risk taking.

    Once in a while (Assange) a hero shows up, according to White standards throughout Whites history, and is of course ignored. While inventive and creative, thus not repeatable, his message and presence is to be stamped out. To be recouped centuries later as Baruch Espinosa to latter use? A future similar to the Holocaust phenomenon message in a generation? Maybe a designer t-shirt?

    It flabbergasts us, that Western descend people throw to the dogs their own heroes, in an age, where you “alternative” media do such bidding with attention to detail and references. The pieces look like science (itself up to bogus in deceit) paper. And everybody is proud to reference to institutions and individuals who cater to the systemics. One should be ashamed as an author of most that are referred at.

    Godefroy de Bouillon, the Malinois dog, Robin Hood, Conan the Arian? Is even mythology, dead? It used to be what created the “narrative” together with externalities and paraphernalia, the Jews still go skin deep, the Whites dare not to differentiate. Even the Catholic Pope continues to declare saints, Whites hide in individual cocooning (Jordan Peterson), and attritioned suggestions of global consumerism.

    We see an amazing lameness, a subcutaneous guilt as to ralley at all. Sophisticated media people have an acute sense for timing. The above article could it be rescheduled for Strawberry June?

  5. Richard L Gearon
    Richard L Gearon says:

    “Poor food choices”??!! Gimme a fookin’ break. BTW, I had a NYC jew Sociology professor call me a “racist anti-semite” in a Sociology class in college. I immediately replied, “Don’t call me a racist anti-semite, you f—ing a–hole.”

  6. joe six pack
    joe six pack says:

    In America Blacks are encouraged to feel victimized by the legacy Media, the Academe and every movie on the silver screen. Yet the numbers tell a different story. They are the victimizers by a huge percentage even if you disregard proportionality.

    Here are the numbers from City Mag
    “In 2012, blacks committed 560,600 acts of violence against whites (excluding homicide), and whites committed 99,403 acts of violence (excluding homicide) against blacks,” writes the Manhattan Institute’s Heather Mac Donald, citing federal Bureau of Justice Statistics data. “Blacks, in other words, committed 85 percent of the non-homicide interracial crimes of violence between blacks and whites, even though they are less than 13 percent of the population.”

    from here:

    • Charlie
      Charlie says:

      Hispanics are lumped in to the “White statistics” in order to create a working number. The actuality of White crimes is much lower once the brown squats are removed from the tabulations.

  7. Anthony Clifton
    Anthony Clifton says:

    Isaiah 13:14

    resegregation…the time has come

    the multi-cultural moshpit is a swirling whirlpool of “JEW” worshipping insanity

    clown world

    Africa is the home of the original Africans…the KNEE GROWS
    KNEE GROWS are much better off in Africa

    and “JEWS” are forever happier in JEWTOPIA

    See Matthew 13:39-43 !!!

  8. William Gruff
    William Gruff says:

    young black and minority ethnic teenage boys and men were disproportionately affected, as both victims and perpetrators.

    ‘Affected’? I knife crime, rather like ‘anti-semitism’, some mysterious disease with no known cause? That aside, are all criminals as ‘affected’ by their crimes as their victims?

    That aside, am I a racist for taking some small comfort from the knowledge that the victims of mindless black violence are ‘disproportionately’ other mindless blacks?

    A few weeks ago I was party to one of those pointless exchanges one sometimes has in pubs when drinking by oneself and so at risk of engagement with any sad and lonely drunk in need of company and validation. An elderly and obviously affluent upper middle-class woman, only slightly that, rather than this, side of drunk, opined angrily that the government should do more to restrict the sale of kitchen knives. I couldn’t resist the opportunity and enthusiastically, and too obviously ironically , agreed that, yes, the way to deal with black on black knife crime was to make it more difficult for white people to buy kitchen knives. She ignored me from then on. Some people react badly when their heads are wrenched from the sand, or their backsides. Unfortunately for us such people have a vote.

  9. Richard B
    Richard B says:

    “In the most extreme cases, guesswork is abandoned and malicious, insidious lies are instead put forward.”

    There are two options for People Of The Lie.

    They can either live in chaos, or in conformity to the lie.
    Blacks represent the former, Jews the latter.

    That’s why blacks were, and still are to some extent, such an important proxy for jews. Jews bascially used blacks to prove to themselves that they could push Whites around. This started to happen like clockwork right around WWII.

    There does seem to be some sort of fatal flaw in Whites to be either willfully or gullibly blind to this and participate in it as if they had no choice in the matter. Much in the way blacks responded to slavery.

    But the point of my comment is, there’s so much talk about how awful they are, or how infuriatingly pathetic so many Whites are regarding their inability to fight back. But I think it’s worthwhile to focus on an important point that’s implicit in Dr. Joyce’s article, especially the fourth paragraph.

    Jewish Supremacy Inc. is good at infiltration, subversion, betrayal, and destruction. But they’re no good at social-management. And for this reason, their power won’t last long. To the extent it does last, it will only bring temporary comfort to its now many proxies and certainly more misery for many Whites. It will bring long term misery for everyone, including Jews.

    Those interested in the survival of the European have got to stop talking about them as if they are an unstoppable force and that our problem is insuperable. It isn’t. And, even if it is, what self-respecting European man or woman (this includes Europes geographical extensions, USA, etc) is going to waste their life complaining.

    Leave the complaining to The KKK.
    The Kvetching Kosher Khazars.

    There’s a reason why lying is bad. It totally screws up socieites. They are basically punishing us, as much as they can, for being honest. It’s so bad, some are would prefer a real jail to the open air prison we all live in now. Not sure I agree with that. But the point is, it’s understandable why some would be backed into that position.

    They lie too much folks. They’re People Of The Lie. Nothing fails like their success. This is not over by a long shot. And there’s always more we can do about our dilema than we think.

  10. Richard B
    Richard B says:

    “The problem is that Jewish activists like Albert Cohen, Afua Hirsch, Alfred Blumstein, Steve Cohen, Ben Cardin, and Akiva Liberman are unanimous in implying that Whites, rather than racial biology, are to blame for the development of the ecology of Black criminality.”

    They’re holding on to this with the clenched teeth of the most abysmal hatred. They have to. Because if their explanation of black criminality fails the patterns of behavior of jewish criminality will be exposed. And a large part of jewish criminality can be found in the very explanatory systems they’re forcing on everyone.

    “criminology was diverted by influential Jewish academics into the critique of society rather than the study of crime and criminals.”

    Talk about patterns of behavior, or in this case, verbal behavior.
    In both quotes above you have the pattern of jewish verbal behavior (I hesitate to call it “thought”) deliberately moving away from the all important facts and consequences of the subject in question, and very intentional movement toward pseudo-theory.
    A form of verbal behavior closer to gossip than reliable theory.

    This is the reason why Critical Thinking was replaced with Critical Theory. Critical Thinking is the literal thinking about our thinking. It’s about exposing ideas to a process of continuous feedback and correction.

    Critical Theory is about using vague abstractions and glittering generalities that automatically mushroom into absurd absolutes.

    This is the reason why Schopenhauer said that nothing about Judaism could be confused with Reason.

    It’s also the reason, as I’ve said before, that they’re no good at social management. If I was a member of one of Jewish Supremacy Inc.’s proxy groups, I’d be asking myself, “What’s going to happen when the Whites are gone? Then what?”

    But they aren’t likely to ask that question exactly because their own minds have been contaminated by poisonous lies masquerading as ultimate truth.

    • pterodactyl
      pterodactyl says:

      “What’s going to happen when the whites are gone?”
      This implies that there is some logic in human behaviour, in which people think about future outcomes and self-interest, and take these into account. It implies that if self-interest is correctly worked out, and communicated to the people, then people would use this information to change their behaviour.

      Perhaps this is not in the slightest the way that people think and act, and all they do is follow behaviour patterns that they are wired with. If the Jews are wired to be hostile even to those tribes who offer them wealth, security, and friendship, then the Jews are wired with behaviour patterns that will give them advantage for a while if they can find a suitable host, but in the end it will end badly for them if the host either dies or turns on them.

      In WWII how many Allied servicemen lining up eagerly before the war to enlist ‘for their country’, how many could write half a page on the pros and cons of the War in terms of benefiting their country, then evaluate whether or not the War will be worth the pros? Not 1 in 100 could, as evaluating self-interest played no part in this process of wanting to go to war. Those who were against the War with Germany such as Mosley were treated as traitors, and no way did the people want to think about self-interest.

      After Pearl Harbor the motive for joining the War was not self-interest, it was anger and a desire to get revenge. The US leaders knew that letting their fleet get attacked would activate this behaviour response of the people, but they did not enter the war from calculating self-interest.

  11. Rerevisionist
    Rerevisionist says:

    “She combines a a Black tendency toward psychopathic self-aggrandisement with a Jewish love for theorizing the host population into self-destruction.” – And black lies (caused by stupidity, the inability to understand) + Jewish lies (caused by deliberate intention to deceive, not generally a black attitude). Fascinating mixture.
    Reading Andrew Joyce’s able piece, and the chaos of comments, surely the main problem is we’re not viewing the Jewish problem from their viewpoint, as seems necessary. They look like a bunch of psychopaths; but, as with (say) Jimmy Savile, it’s best to work out how they react before taking action. They seem to think a bunch of grey bearded freaks brought up in near-isolation on the Talmud are genuinely superior, and should impose a joint decision with a straight face. Or something.
    . . . Students of the Talmud seem to content themselves with expressing disgust and shock, but without seeing ‘Jews” vision of themselves, perhaps as light of the world, perhaps as a hidden controlling army, perhaps as unchallengeable, perhaps as lowering themselves to secretly interact with ‘goy’ freemasons etc., perhaps as thugs and thieves, perhaps as parasites.
    We need words, phrases, slogans, facts, to encapsulate what ‘Jews’ do, and their ‘legal’ shenanigans, and their standardised manoeuvres, which come to them as by instinct after their years of auto-brainwashing.

  12. Neil C
    Neil C says:

    I would like to add my most recent disturbing experience.
    Yesterday 17th April I was on my way to the shop @ 9.00am, normally a time of goodness. I heard hideous screams, then I spotted the culprit, an African (He was black with a African voice) he seemed to be shouting at imaginary assailants and was built like an ox.
    I stayed well clear as images of a frenzied knife attack came to mind. I thought how the fuck was this obviously mentally deranged time-bomb allowed into the country? The customs officers are exasperated by regulations that tie their hands (One video showed a avg 30 year old Nigerian claiming to be fifteen–he even had the ”Nigerian handbook-how to lie to UK customs” in his pocket, underlined was ”claim to be fifteen”! ) they let him in with a voucher for a hotel and said ”come back tomorrow”, he never came back.
    Anyway I digress, how can mentally ill blacks or anyone who represents a threat to the UK be let in?
    I live in London and am sick of aggressive blacks, if you hear car horns blaring it is normally blacks, it is true that they have zero impulse control. The place seems full of schizophrenic blacks(studies show they are more prone) I had one come up to me foaming at the mouth and limping(no doubt from some bizzare leap) he claimed to be an Angel and said I was a devil and he was going to chop off my head(I kid you not-this dude was a neighbor) He also on another occasion pulled up his shirt to reveal a wrapped up knife.
    Our leaders have failed us miserably.

      • ChilledBee
        ChilledBee says:

        I have witnessed some deranged people speaking about white people but this lady certainly takes the top prize. Can they not see the absolute madness of this? It’s a pity there wasn’t someone there to counter her argument with the hard facts about what is happening all around Europe (and Australia) when Africans are in their communities. One thing is patently clear and that is that Africans are not enriching society. It is also no surprise that her fawning sidekick on the video, Jewish MEP RUI TAVARES, was behind the “TAVARES REPORT”
        that basically gave the EU powers to monitor (spy) on Hungary and make sure that Viktor Orban was going along with their agenda. Fortunately, Orban countered that report with his own.

    • T
      T says:

      Neil C writes: ‘Our leaders have failed us miserably.’

      True, that.

      Too many poorly leading elites and too many people either following or tolerating them.

      While the royal families of Europe that remain have been stripped of most of their power, they still have the power of the ‘bully pulpit’, which if only they were willing they could use to support their people.

      As it stands, they don’t seem willing or prepared to do so, but then they may be operating under a delusion that they have popular support when it comes to these royals likely in general (tacit or otherwise) support for multi-culturalism.

      It seems in the past the general public on a rare occasion did have a way of getting their point across about their unhappiness. This involved the public shaming of members of the king or queen, or lesser royals, attending a popular opera or play, and being booed upon their appearance. Or, in the case of one of the 19th century British monarchs (not Victoria) being pelted with rotten food when attempting to mix with a crowd on a street.

      Have either yourself, or anyone else visiting this site, come across any modern examples of public shaming of the European royal families for their support of the multi-cult?

    • T.Gilligan
      T.Gilligan says:

      Neil C, As live in London too, I understand most emphatically your ire. Imported Blacks and their entitled and attitudinal sprogs have caused irreparably ruin to this city.
      A few decades ago, late 1970’s, 1980’s, newspapers were regularly publishing pictures of battered and bruised WW2 veterans and, or their widows beaten by these feral beasts. Racial profiling of victims -not a feint hope of connecting the dots. I pinch myself that, (so far), a knife hasn’t been plunged into me for the flimsiest of reasons or pretexts.
      Jill Leovy’s book “Ghettoside” chronicles 10 yrs the LA homicide division; yet, what would have been a classic document performs a gyration of blaming historical ‘racism’ and even some Greek mythology.
      E.Michael Jones identified Jews as ‘agents of chaos’ and using Blacks as ‘proxy warriors’. He recounts Marcus Garvey walking in the NAACP office in Harlem and it was filled with Jews.

  13. Malky
    Malky says:

    Excellent account of how the mainstream has adopted and enforced the logic evading “explanations” for the inherent problems caused by black immigration. I’ll be recommending this article to many others.

  14. iHanna
    iHanna says:

    I’ve been very upset this week by many things related to this article, but the one that takes the cake is the black guy throwing the white 5 year old boy over a 3rd floor mall balcony. There was one article that said the suspect, named Emmanuel Deshawn Aranda, told police he “wanted to kill someone”, but they are painting him as someone with “mental issues”, but reading his past run-ins with authorities simply shows a man with low impulse control and anger issues.

    When searching the subject you will only get articles that are at least 2 days old or older, because this crime does not fit the “white on black” criminal profile. If it was other way around we’d be hearing about this non-stop.

  15. Spuds MacKenzie
    Spuds MacKenzie says:

    Whenever I read these articles I am struck by how none of these upset readers has any sort of plan or any suggestions for what might be done to change things. It’s as bad as watching Hannity. Hannity piles outrage on outrage; his readers are probably frothing at the mouth by the time he’s done, but no outrage is ever punished. At least Hannity hints that Republicans are almost about to do something to set the world right, but nothing ever comes of it. The right seems to suffer from Learned Helplessness or such a condition. The left is all action, they go from success to success, they never lose a game and commit crimes with impunity. The right lives to wring hands and lose. So I guess right-wing discourse should be viewed as a stress-reduction strategy or bromide.

    • Charlie
      Charlie says:

      I’m an older White male. I’m MORE than willing to fight a race war even if it means my own death. I’d be satisfied with some retribution before I die for the filth and depravity I’ve had to witness in my lifetime. How’s that for a “solution”? Are you ready to fight?

    • pterodactyl
      pterodactyl says:

      Nothing can change until the proportion that want it to change increases a lot. So all we can do is observe and wait until the rest of the people have had enough. At present the majority have not had enough and are voting for more of the same. There is nothing we can do apart from helping to make more aware, for example by going on social media and recommending certain videos and articles and Tweets.

      But making people aware is not the whole story. Most people are already fully aware that London is minority white, everyone sees news items about schools and can see all the Africans and muslims who are the next generation. They can see this, so they are already being informed.

      The number who are aware that we are becoming like Africa and the third world is very high – over 90% They can see this all around them, especially in TV adverts. The number who object sufficiently to actually vote to stop this is less than 1 in 10. This is the proportion who voted recently in a by-election in Wales in Newport for the candidates who had any intention of doing anything about 3rd world immigration.

      We can do nothing whilst 9 in 10 can (a) see what is happening (b) will not vote to stop it.

      However, if the number who are ‘extra’ aware, ie know more fully what is going on and that the current elite are the enemy within and not just being incompetent, then when the pendulum stops and is ready to go the other way, if there are more of us at that moment then the swing back can be much greater and can go further, which includes identifying who our enemy within is.

  16. TJ
    TJ says:

    Cover: Stone medallion depicting the purported martyrdom of
    Simonino di Trento, Palazzo Salvatori, Trent.
    Inscription on the medallion: “In the interior recesses of this building, where a synagogue once stood, but where a shrine has now been built, the blessed martyr Little Simon of Trent was killed with horrible tortures, in the dead of night, by the Jews, at the age of twenty-nine months, on the 10th of April 1475 of our era.”


    The Jews of Europe and Ritual Murder

    by Ariel Toaff

    Translated by Gian Marco Lucchese and Pietro Gianetti.
    Published by Lucchese-Gianetti Editori LLC.

    2016 revised edition.
    (c) 2007 by Gian Marco Lucchese and Pietro Gianetti.
    Formal abandonment of copyright: December 24, 2014.
    Revised. Please use this version.
    Last revision: August 1, 2016.
    Annuls and replaces all previous versions.


    The following translation was performed free of charge to protest an
    injustice: the destruction by the ADL of Ariel Toaff’s Blood Passover
    on Jewish ritual murder. The author is the son of the Chief Rabbi of
    Rome, and a professor of Jewish Renaissance and Medieval History at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, just outside Tel Aviv.
    Dr. Toaff is uniquely qualified to write this book, being thoroughly
    familiar with the derivative literature in English, French, German and Italian, as well as the original documentary sources in Latin, Medieval Italian, Hebrew and Yiddish. This is not something he worked on in secret. On the contrary, he worked on it openly with his university students and colleagues in Israel for several years; one of his students was even going to publish a paper on the subject. The author is extremely careful about what he says, and his conclusions must be taken seriously. It reads like a detective story.

    If it had been published in Israel, in Hebrew, no one would have
    cared. There are large bodies of literature in Hebrew that Jews do not wish Gentiles to know about. But Dr. Toaff’s announcement of its publication in Italy, in Italian, raised a worldwide firestorm of fury.
    Under unbearable pressure, the book was withdrawn from publication.

    Come in out of the darkness, and strike a blow for the light.


  17. Panadechi
    Panadechi says:

    Should be applied, the concept of symmetry or ethnic-social-cultural-biological asymmetry, a symmetric (homogeneous) society like Japan has a very low index of criminality or ethnic tension and a high social cohesion, so the word oxymoron can not be used Jewish racism. Unlike an asymmetrical society (Multiculturalism) where ethnic and social cultural conflict is constant, accompanied by high crime and low social performance, such is the case of blacks (BIQ = Coefficient, Intellectual Biological < 80). Racism = Oximoron anti-white Jew.

    • Charlie
      Charlie says:

      The word “racism” was introduced in to the western lexicon by the left’s immortal hero Josef Stalin whom Franklin Roosevelt the kapo of American Socialism (communism lite) affectionately labeled Uncle Joe because of his fondness for Stalin and his subjugation and murder of over 65 Million White Christian Russians. Make now mistake the Roosevelts are/were communists and it is with great delight that I celebrate Franklin Roosevelt’s suffering with the lifelong painful agony of polio. He was a butcher and him and his family thieves of White American fortune. He burns in hell with many if not most American so called “leaders”.

      • pterodactyl
        pterodactyl says:

        Below is Stefan Molyneux interviewing Diana West, who has researched into the War and the way it was used to help Stalin. It includes: how the war was extended to help Stalin, and how the War was used to transfer military hardware to the Soviet Union.

  18. Commentator Mike
    Commentator Mike says:

    Violent crime is even higher in most black only countries where there are no whites so it’s obviously ridiculous to blame whites or racism for high crime rates among blacks in white countries.

    Andrew writes:

    “Government statistics show that two thirds of young “knife crime” offenders in London are “Black or minority ethnic,” and that Black and Mixed Race individuals utterly dominate the victims of crime statistics.”

    If this is so should whites complain at all, other than demanding that there should be no more importation of people from regions with high rates of violent crime? This should be the priority, otherwise there will be little, if any benefit, of whatever policy is adopted to reduce violent crime in these communities.

  19. Anti-Termite
    Anti-Termite says:

    Been wondering for decades why obscene black violent crime rates keep being claimed as proof that whites are evil.

    This article reveals the cause of that ill logic: Jews acting as termites eating away at our society and culture by excusing and thereby encouraging and enabling black criminal violence to the grave detriment of blacks in furtherance of the Jews’ goal which is white genocide.


Comments are closed.