Google “black victims of white crime” and this is what you get:

Clearly there’s not enough white-on-black violence to write about, and it’s not as if people aren’t looking.

A search for “Afro-American blog” yields over 92 million results. There is no lack of negro-centric/negrophilic online activity. The entire corporate-controlled media and government apparatus is heavily pro-black. You would think that, with the infinite resources they have, somebody would have come up with a video like this one, or like this one, or this one – without resorting to rehashing incidents that occurred over 50 years ago, before most of us were even born.

In “The imaginary war against white people” Harold Pollack dismisses claims of black mobs attacking whites because they come from “fringe groups”. What makes them “fringe groups”? They are considered “fringe groups” because they bring up black-on-white violence. This violence is well-documented, but we’re supposed to ignore it. Then he quotes John Derbyshire and dismisses him because he wrote a “racist essay”. Deeming him a “racist” is apparently enough to discredit anything he has to say. Pollack writes:

In fact, the high crime rate in minority communities has been the most obsessively-covered story in American urban life for at least forty years. If some politically-correct conspiracy has sought to obscure this issue, it has been an epic failure.

We’re still waiting for corporate/government media to cover the black-on-white aspect of black crime. So far, the only concern is for its black victims, while it is forbidden to bring up the fact that blacks go out of their way to victimize whites. It’s not even permitted to discuss “black crime”, only “black-on-black” crime. A google search for “black crime” yields 983,000 results – but a search for “black on black crime” yields 2,840,000 results. Many of those reports make the ridiculous claim that black-on-black crime is ignored. Obviously, it’s black-on-white crime that’s ignored. A search for “black on white crime” yields only 310,000 results. Many of those reports only mention it in order to ridicule the notion. The article in question is a case in point.

Pollack goes on to say:

Despite obsessive media attention at Fox News or wherever, lethal black-on-white crimes are rarer than you might believe. Crime rates are below those of ten years ago. They are way below the levels of twenty years ago. U.S. homicide rates are the lowest they’ve been since the early 1960s. I’m aware of no data to indicate that black-on-white crime is a specifically worsening problem. Coppins cites an FBI report listing 575 reported anti-white bias crimes in 2010. That’s a tiny number in a nation of 300 million people.

Pollack should read the latest reports. It turns out there has been an increase in violent crimes against whites, even according to the government’s biased statistics. Perhaps Pollack is unaware that the FBI is biased in its reporting of crimes against, and by, whites. One would think, since he reads “racist” opinions, that Pollack is aware of the way our government uses Hispanics in order to fudge white crime and make it appear there is less anti-white crime than there really is. One would think that Pollack would be aware that one cannot depend on FBI statistics to count anti-white bias crimes in the U.S. That only a very small percentage of anti-white bias crimes are recorded as such. Even a cursory reading of pro-white blogs and websites will turn up many such crimes where we are told “race was not a factor”, when it obviously was a factor.

Pollack continues:

In 2008, a graduate student and I examined Chicago medical examiner records for two hundred consecutive homicides involving teenage and young-adult victims. Only eleven of these 200 victims were non-Hispanic whites. I expected to find a few white students who were set upon and killed by robbers (say) at an ATM or a carjacking. I found no such cases. Such things do happen, but not very often in today’s urban America.

Out of those eleven, how many were murdered by blacks? We are not told. Out of all those non-whites, how many were murdered by whites? We are not told. But Pollack is quick to draw conclusions, based on his sampling of 200 Chicago homicides, about the rest of the country. If 189 gang-members are murdered by other gang-members, it makes the rest of us that much safer. But the murder of eleven non-Hispanic, law-abiding (if this was the case), whites, is a tragedy.

The rest of Pollack’s article is anecdotal but it’s worth noting the straw-man argument he sets up. According to him, people like Derbyshire believe that all blacks are evil killing machines laying in wait for their innocent white victims.

I know people who talk on their cell phones while driving. Some of them have done so for many years without incident. I’ve been known to do so myself. Yet according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):

In 2009, more than 5,400 people died in crashes that were reported to involve a distracted driver and about 448,000 people were injured.

Among those killed or injured in these crashes, nearly 1,000 deaths and 24,000 injuries included cell phone use as the major distraction.

So we are advised, and even required, to avoid using our cell phones while driving. According to The Color of Crime:

Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.

Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black.

Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.

Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes against whites than vice versa.

Therefore, it is quite reasonable to be wary around blacks. This is what most of us believe.

One comment on Pollack’s article, by Katja, reads:

For example, I’ve never gotten a good answer from the likes of John Derbyshire why they don’t also engage in gender-based profiling. After all, men are around ten times more likely (with minor variations by country) to be the perpetrators of violent crimes than women, right? So, should we shun and ghettoize the male half of the species? Obviously, the answer is “no”. As a reasonably smart woman, I know, for example, that I am safest from violent crime committed by men in the company of other men. That’s because the behavior of a criminal minority of a segment of the population is not a predictor for the behavior of the rest of that segment.

Since the website in question doesn’t appear to be accepting comments any longer, I’ll explain it here. Among young people (who are almost always the perpetrators of violent crime), a majority are men. It is simply not practical to “shun and ghettoize” males. You’d have to live as a hermit far from human habitation to do so. It is obviously not possible to put all men in ghettos or for women to shun them. But it is practical, and advisable, to keep blacks away from whites as much as possible. Saving white lives is just one, of several, reasons for this.

At least Katja recognizes that she should be wary of lone males. I’m sure she also takes their dress and speech patterns into consideration. I’m also certain that sometimes she is wary of groups of men; she can’t always assume that a group of men is safe to be around. Jared Taylor has pointed out that the difference in criminality between blacks and whites is just as great as between men and women. So perhaps Katja and I are in agreement. As for Pollack, I would encourage him to continue ignoring Derbyshire’s advise. Eventually the Pollack problem will solve itself.