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.”
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.