A puzzling development happened from the year 1991 on-wards. That is the complete cliff-side drop-off in terms of violent crime within the United States of America.
Even more puzzling is the fact that this point isn’t nearly as common a counterargument against our touting of racial crime statistics and the fallibility of modern multicultural society, as you would expect. I can only guess the reason is a mutual understanding that griping at the flaws of society is a useful rhetorical tool for change, and since the system isn’t nearly done with its defilement of our nations, teaching the masses this counter argument in school and via the news isn’t in their interest.
Nevertheless, I thought it would be an excellent thought exercise and opportunity to enhance our rhetoric and strengthen our worldview by tackling this real-world phenomenon and explaining it from our point of view.
Now, the most common factors that I could find contributing to the downward trend of crime in general, but specifically violent crime within the U.S., are as follows:
New Policing Strategies:
- Increased reliance on prisons.
- Changes in the drug market, particularly crack.
- The general aging of the population.
- Increased gun control laws and policies.
- An economic upturn within the nineties.
- An increase in the number of police officers.
- Abortion was made a constitutional right in 1973 (18 years before 1991).
- Altering demographics (ethnicity, income, location, and so on).
Now, out of all the reasons I could find, the ones most often touted by the majority of leftist academics were the introduction of abortion and “an upturn in social-economic development for underdeveloped communities”, a.k.a. gibs for niggers and spics.
The reasoning is that abortion prevented the births of subsequent generations of mostly poor, underprivileged, and unwanted children within an environment conducive to the creation of criminals. Furthermore, increased economic and academic opportunities along with increased social mobility alleviated the problems facing the populations that included the most criminal elements.
There is some merit within this explanation; it is true that most crime in general, but especially violent crime, is done by young males in the age range of 16 to 26. It is also true that poverty and poor social mobility can induce a population to develop bad cultural traits that make them more prone to becoming criminals.
What the leftists hadn’t factored into their explanation, however, is the factor of race beyond a surface level, insofar as non-whites are sad and thus have to kill and rape more. There are such things as genetic inclinations and abilities, which force every race to deal with the same environment differently. And this is where the leftist trite ends on a dead end and our worldview has the ability to provide a full explanation. It is a fact that the race that has the most abortions in percentages and numbers, is exactly the same race that provides the U.S. with the most violent criminals between the ages of 16 and 26.
That race is the niggers, of course.
The niggers within America, today as in the eighties and earlier, produce the most violent criminals. So if we put the facts in a row and don’t exclude the factor of race, the correct story becomes as such. Blacks (but also other non-Whites such as latinos) grace America with a torrent of violent crime brought upon by their young males. In the early seventies, a leftist movement within society brought forth the increasing normalization and, in 1973, even legalization of general abortion. The biggest users of this infanticide service were and are black women, and 18 years later, from 1991 on-wards, there are less and less young non-White ganbangers to refill the ranks of the black tide.
Case closed, right?
Not exactly, although it provides a big part of the puzzle.
Abortion seems to be a big reason why the drop off happened, it explains the near vertical drop off in teen homicides in the following 10 to 15 years from 1991, but it doesn’t explain all of the decline since despite the abortion changes, the black population was and is still growing alongside the latino population. The thorns might be blunted, but another factor must have been at play to fully explain the downward trend of violent crime down to a low of “only” 361.6 crimes per 100.000 people in 2014 (which is still 200.7 violent crimes more per 100.000 people as compared to the earliest statistic I could find from 1960, when it was 160.9).
What other societal trend was at play that could have provided law enforcement with the tools necessary to, along with an increased manpower pool, combat crime more effectively?
Enter the computers and the internet.
Of course, computers and the internet, along with both their predecessors, had already existed for decades around the time the nineties rolled around, but within the nineties, the internet and digital systems became increasingly mainstream, leading to the situation we’re in today, where the internet and computer technology have become almost completely integrated within society on all levels.
An example of this digitalization of police methods can be found in the CompStat method of digitally tracking and cataloging crimes of various severity and their location. In and of itself, a digitized version of an older system called “Charts of the Future”, which used tacks stuck into a map. Both systems were developed in that den of villainy called Jew York City. The digital variant of the system quickly spread throughout the US and later outside of it, which, coupled with improvements in surveillance, tracking, and data-organizing technology, made the enlarged police a more effective weapon against crime.
What I think should also be mentioned here, which I saw mentioned nowhere else when I was reading about it, is the RICO Act (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) of 1970. Just as the Joe v Wade abortion law from the early seventies, this law also only showed its teeth in the following decades since it’s adoption. In case you are not familiar with the RICO Act, let me give a summary. Basically, if a person can be proven to have committed at least two acts of racketeering within a ten-year time span, they can be sentenced to a heavy fine of at least $250,000 and all the way up to 20 years in prison per proven racketeering count, in addition to having to forfeit all racketeering-related business interests and assets gained through racketeering. On top of this, the subject’s assets and person can be temporarily seized and held before the trial to prevent the funneling of money and assets to another enterprise.
A heavy legal sledgehammer designed to kill semi-legal and illegal organizations and catch as many fish, both big and small, with the same net. I really couldn’t do it justice within such a small summary, so I recommend people look into it themselves. Suffice to say, the constitutional legality of the act is disputed, and the harsh measures able to be brought upon a person for rather limited wrongdoings have also raised controversy.
With this law, the power of organized crime has been steadily eroded since the seventies, reaching a high-point in the late eighties and early nineties with the conviction of various high-profile mob bosses like John Gotti and Anthony Casso of the Gambino and Lucchese families, respectively. The mob wasn’t the only target of the RICO Act, however; everything from a corrupt police department (the Key West Police Department) to stock brokers have been targeted with this law, including black and latino gangs.
And I think now that we have the full picture in front of us, let’s conclude what we’ve discovered so far.
In the seventies, two important developments came to be. First off, the system, in an effort to deal with the increasing power of organized crime, or at least using it as an excuse, begins the implementation of various semi-totalitarian laws, of which the most notable for our story here is the RICO act of 1970, but the violent crime control and law enforcement act of 1994 should also be mentioned since despite the name, its content deals more with the enforcement of various leftist social policies like the assault weapon ban.
At the same time, jewish-originating ideas like general (non-eugenic) abortion popularized by second wave feminism become mainstream and, in a landslide court case, are implemented as a right in 1973. This causes an entire generation of black women to curb their own population growth resulting 18 years later in the absence of a new generation of non-White gangbangers in 1991 which hampers the growth and eventually was one of the main causes of the downturn in violent crime in America.
Finally, in the nineties, computer and internet technology increasingly come into their own and are promptly used by the system in combination with the totalitarian legal framework to spy on, undermine, corral, control, and catalog the population of the US, which also includes the criminals. The creation of an expanded and modernized police force is the result with much room to infringe on the supposed right of its citizens and occasionally also actual criminals. Proving once again the hypocrisy of the system who proclaims its superiority based upon the liberties and comfort it can provide the masses.
This last part also explains largely the worldwide downwards trend in crime since the system is worldwide and technological surveillance and controlling social policies are implemented all over our fair sphere, resulting in generally similar results everywhere, although there are more reasons and I have no doubt that in America, Europe, and especially countries outside the West, a lot of outright lying and skewing of the statistics is at play to create this image of an ever more pleasant earth.
A totalitarian system is made possible by improved data and computer technology, which also leads to a decrease in crime through increased control over society.
Secondly, abortion, which mostly affects the non-white races, curbs their population growth in the West and provides fewer youngsters to turn criminal by the time the nineties roll around.
So that’s the crime drop-off from a nationalist point of view. Next time some idiotic lemming or particularly clever ones decides to bring up this supposed counter argument to you, you’ll have all the knowledge and facts in house to not only deflect him, but prove how this supports our point of view.
The abortion example proves the racial aspect of crime in a grand fashion. The downward trend in that sense is not a refutation but a support of our touting of racial crime statistics and the differences inherent between the races.
Furthermore, the heavy-handed, hypocritical, and totalitarian measures of the system prove without a shadow of a doubt that the current states do not have our best interest at heart and that only with the utmost effort, costing tens of billions in funding every year, can the effects of multiculturalism and culture-degrading policies they themselves implemented, be amended.
Instead, the facts speak clearly that we need a White population. Living among our own is where we thrive best.
The facts speak clearly: the current system has to go. It is a self-destructive, wasteful machine that should be replaced with a benevolent yet strong nationalist state that does work and fight for our benefit, both at home against criminals and abroad against hostile nations.
The facts speak clearly that we as nationalists need to put renewed and dedicated effort into the destruction of the system for the good of our White nations. And the facts speak clearly that with appropriate and dedicated effort, we can win!
Hail Victory my friends!