The basic dishonesty of both Media and Psychologists on Serious and Violent Crime.
JUPPLANDIA
This morning I was thinking about how fundamentally dishonest people are on crime and social issues when there is any kind of racial component introduced into the topic.
What unmanipulated statistics and common sense tells us on certain issues for example is directly contrary to the assumptions that leftists, progressives and a Globalist dominated mainstream seeks to present, whether that’s presented in news or in entertainment.
And this occurs across a very wide range of topics.
On the issue of immigration, for example, there are very clear, obviously factual reasons relating to crime and violence to oppose illegal immigration, undocumented and unaccounted for arrivals, open borders and mass migration.
Both common sense and statistical facts tell any rational person that if millions of unvetted people arrive from dangerous and Third World countries in such a way that the authorities have no means of knowing who these people are and what their criminal records and cultural practices are that these groups will include dangerous individuals and will increase levels of crime and violence.
Every honest statistical analysis of crime figures comparing rates among existing First World citizenry and rates among illegal aliens, migrants, and mass immigration arrivals from Third World countries show that asylum seekers, illegal arrivals, and unvetted migrants are statistically more likely to commit crimes than the existing citizen.
This is true of sexual crimes like rape, child rape and sexual assault. It is true of sexual harassment in all forms.
It is true of antisocial criminal behaviour too, such as public defecation, public indecency and disorderly conduct under the influence of drugs and alcohol.
It is true of everything from littering, property damage and theft to looting, rioting and murder.
It is true of making a living by criminal means that harm others, with the sole exception of white collar financial crimes and corruption crimes that the average street level criminal does not have access to or the opportunity to commit.
It’s fairly obvious that many non Western, Third World countries have radically different general social values and expectations around things like female rights and the treatment and protection of children, which lead people from those nations to disproportionately commit sexual crimes in particular against women and children. It’s even been argued in courts as a defence of such crininals that these differences in behaviour and culture are real and lead people to falsely believe that sexual crimes are acceptable.
Denying any of this is denying basic and obvious facts, for which both common sense logic and firm forms of proof like crime rates and legal codes in the Third World country of origin together with increases in crime rates in the First World nation affected by mass immigration, can be supplied.
As a general rule broadly applicable across multiple nations and cultures, a Third World person is more likely to be dangerous and break laws in the First World than a First World person is. This may be deeply uncomfortable for some to admit, but it’s true. Some social practices and cultural backgrounds impart objectively worse ideas and behaviours. If you are raised where public defecation is common and considered normal, for instance, you are quite obviously more likely to shit on the street. If you are raised where sexually abusing women is very common (either through brutal war conditions or backwards cultural and religious attitudes) you are more likely to sexually abuse and rape women.
None of this, really, should be controversial to point out. It’s obvious, it’s true, it’s supported by correct statistical analysis, it’s supported by polling of attitudes, and it’s supported by actual crime figures.
But the demand is that we should ignore reality and pretend that none of it is true, and that these facts are both untrue and morally despicable. We should pretend that the facts and the logical, common sense understanding consistent with the facts are racism or white supremacism or ‘Far Right’.
Because we aren’t allowed to acknowledge that majority white First World nations (or even non white First World nations like Japan) have different cultural codes to Third World failed states and war zones where rape and violence are more common.
The reason we must be dishonest on this of course is contemporary racial politics, since most First World nations are majority white in population, and most Third World nations have very small white populations, or none at all. Most of the people who are more dangerous, more likely to have cultural excuses or lessons in behaving in vile ways, and more statistical chance of considering sexual violence and general violence and crime normal and excusable, are non white.
Again, this is a factual reality, and a factual reality which, if we express it, makes us morally wrong, makes us ‘racist’ or ‘bigoted’, by the policing of thought and language which currently exists in our western societIes when our ruling class is composed of progressive and leftist people who are educated to be dishonest on these issues.
If we were honest on immigration, we would know a number of basic things. We would know that culturally and ethnically similar immigrants are more likely to integrate and contribute. We would know that ethnically homogeneous societies have fewer internal divisions and are higher trust, lower crime societies. We would know that an arrival from another First World nation is less likely to be a problem than an arrival from a Third World nation. We would essentially prioritise the immigration of culturally similar (Christians or First World migrants from established democracies) people and, yes, racially similar ones too. We might also be pretty accommodating towards low crime, high trust, First World arrivals from non white nations that fit those beneficial conditions (we’d be a lot less worried about a Japanese immigrant or an Israeli Jewish one than an African one-not because we are racists who prefer a skin colour, but because we are realists who prefer safety, and because some people are coming from places where all the indicators of their future behaviour are good while others are coming from places where terrible attitudes are extremely common.
In some instances, looking at those positive indicators would have us actually less worried about some non white immigrants than white ones. A non white Gibraltarian has been raised in a safe, civilised, low crime, culturally British setting which not only demands a certain level of shared loyalty but which acts as a positive indicator of future behaviour and successful integration. These instances are automatically going to be rarer than immigrants who have no shared values and loyalties, but should be noted. Clearly a great error of early mass immigration to the UK was the assumption that all those arriving from former colonies, and their descendants, would be possessed of some shared cultural values derived from the period of British rule. For some non white immigrants this was true, for many others it was not. We imported the alien and the embittered as well as the amenable and the civilised.
So the basic situation is that many of the honest truths are borderline forbidden to express, that racial politics has severely distorted basic common sense, and that the progressive and ‘responsible’ line on immigration is fundamentally dishonest and false. We can’t have a successful immigration policy because we aren’t allowed to know that some cultures are better than others and some demographics and identities are safer and less criminal than others. We must ignore generalities that are true, and accept actions and policies that are harmful, in order to protect progressive liberal ideals and false understanding from the assault of logic, common sense and real world harms and consequences.
The code of how to think of these issues is literally the thing that the ruling class wants to protect, rather the physical safety and positive cultural integrity of their own existing citizens. It’s much more important that we keep thinking the politically correct thoughts, rather than that we stop or reduce the number of our own children being raped. Verbal conformity matters much more than physical safety, in this progressive directed system.
Immigration is only the most obvious area where the entire mandated world view contradicts basic but uncomfortable facts. Every racial or racial adjacent topic shows the same distortions and disparities and the same efforts from ruling and media classes to frame everything dishonestly. Academic and clinical psychologists and sociologists, as a professional client class, are also just as prone to fundamental dishonesty on crime issues related to race as immigration lawyers, leftist race advocates, and media and political commentators are.
And this is what we see when any crime statistics are discussed in relation to race. Take the topic of school shooters and mass shooting incidents for example. Statistically adjusted for population levels, black school shooters or mass shooters are more common than white ones. There’s far fewer overall, because of population level overall, but more than there should be, proportionately speaking. Media and entertainment, as well as many psychologists and sociologists present the school shooter as invariably white, when this is not true. Similarly gender confused trans people are now statistically more likely, again when you take population levels into account, to be school shooters or mass shooting murderers than straight white or straight black males with no gender issues are.
Common sense understanding of severe psychological crisis, the mental effects of hormonal treatments, and awareness of the kind of mind altering chemical dependence involved in the drugs taken to sustain a trans identity, would (like the cultural effects of being raised where rape is normal) all have indicated that trans were more likely to be dangerous than non trans. But as with race issues related to crime, the protection of the minority (and any delusions they hold AND any delusions about them held by progressives) trumps the recognition of reality or the safety and protection of others.
Now I’m jumping between topics to an extent here (immigration, race, school shooters, trans) but they are all united by a common thread, which is that objective reality says one thing and media and ruling class presentation says the opposite thing because the objective truth is deeply uncomfortable (‘problematic’ in their own language) for a progressive mainstream to admit. I could draw in plenty of other example areas as well, like the whole BLM movement and CRT arguments regarding police shootings or black crime (police being less statistically likely to shoot black offenders, for instance, when the public portrayal is the opposite of that, or black crime figures being truthfully and objectively appalling and that being something everyone is supposed to ignore).
To sum this disconnect between fact and presentation up, we should acknowledge that the role of the mainstream media as a client class spreading lies and dishonesty on anything related to race or gender is well known. We are all aware of how media will emphasise white crime and minimise or excuse black crime. And we are just as aware now of how the same applies in terms of sexual crime, active racism and general evil in depictions in entertainment (in the UK for instance the mainstream entertainment response to the news that thousands of working class white girls in northern towns had been gang raped by Pakistani Muslim men for generations was a Coronation Street soap opera storyline on girls being groomed by white rapists).
In the case of the mainstream media what we have is what, in a novel, would be called the unreliable narrator. A person telling us a story in a dishonest fashion. In the novel it’s a technique to philosophically discuss the nature of perception, to morally examine the nature of corruption, and to give some structural means of springing surprises on the reader. In the media it’s people pretending to be objective and truthful, while applying racial defence and attack modes reflecting their own prejudices or their paid for support of progressive attitudes.
But it isn’t just the media who do all this. Academic disciplines like psychology, sexology and sociology will do so as well, on any crime or social fabric issue with a race or gender element. And it can lead to some truly fascinating examples of a person applying torturous bullying of their own arguments and research around to a pre-determined Standard Progressive Attitude. One of the best examples I’ve found comes from the extreme topic of serial killers and the presentation of serial killers as overwhelmingly white males.
Back in 2014 Psychology Today published an article by the psychologist Scott A.Bonn titled Not All Serial Killers Are White, Male Loners: The media perpetuate stereotypes. On the surface it’s an honest narration, a psychologist simply pointing out that the media and entertainment (and consequent public perception) of white men being more prone to be serial killers is false. Such a commentary would be both accurate, together with any criticism of the media for spreading falsehoods being valid too. This is how the article begins:
“Contrary to popular myth, not all serial killers are white. Serial killers span all racial and ethnic groups in the U.S. The racial diversity of serial killers generally mirrors that of the overall U.S. population. There are well documented cases of African-American, Latino, and Asian-American serial killers.
African-Americans make up the largest racial minority group among serial killers, representing approximately 20 percent of the total. Significantly, however, only white, and normally male, serial killers such as Ted Bundy become popular cultural icons.
Although they are not household names like their infamous white counterparts, examples of prolific racial minority serial killers include Carl Eugene Watts, an African-American man from Michigan, known as the “Sunday Morning Slasher,” who murdered at least 17 women in Michigan and Texas; Anthony Edward Sowell, an African-American man known as the “Cleveland Strangler” who kidnapped, raped and murdered 11 women in Ohio; and Rafael Resendez-Ramirez, a Mexican national known as the “Railroad Killer,” who killed as many as 15 men and women in Kentucky, Texas, and Illinois.“
Now all of this is true and accurate, and a good counterpoint to the presentation of serial killers as exclusively white male loners. There’s some oddity in phrasing that is morally a bit weird (“Significantly, however, only white, and normally male, serial killers such as Ted Bundy become popular cultural icons”). I’m not sure that ‘popular icon’ is the right way to describe famous serial killers, since it implies positive respect and admiration. It is true that there is a phenomenon whereby mainly lonely, socially awkward and themselves disturbed women fantasise about and write to serial killers or even form real world physical relationships with them, but that’s rare compared to the overall fame of a serial killer or even the number of (again mostly women) serial killer ‘hobbyists’ and amateur armchair psychologists who read about them and are interested in film, TV and literature about them and their crimes. A more accurate point would be to say that some become infamous and very well known.
That aside, if Bonn stuck to just explaining how the popular understanding and the entertainment cliche is wrong he’d be on very solid ground, but when he steps further towards explanations of why the cliche exists he trips over the stumbling block of his own progressive assumptions and assumptions regarding race common amongst psychologists. Here is how Bonn explains why serial killers are normally depicted as white males:
“The myth that all serial killers are white is routinely fueled and reinforced by the entertainment news media. This situation persists because the major news outlets, particularly television networks such as HLN, are far more likely to provide coverage of homicides and missing person cases involving white victims than incidents involving racial minority victims.
This biased reporting practice is most acute when a white victim is female. Crime news stories that become major media events almost always feature an attractive white female as the victim. Nicole Brown Simpson is the quintessential example of this phenomenon. It is hard to think of a recent, high-profile case that did not follow this pattern.
The highly publicized disappearance of Laci Peterson, a beautiful, young, white woman, who was killed by her philandering husband, Scott Peterson, in 2002 is another classic example of this reporting trend. Also, the disappearance of high school senior Natalee Holloway in 2005 is another crime story that became a global media event because it involved an attractive, young, white, female victim.
The biased news reporting practice of selectively covering missing person cases involving young, white females is known as “missing white woman syndrome.”
Unbalanced reporting by the news media sends a message that white victims, particularly females, are more important and deserve more consideration than racial minority victims. The biased pattern of news reporting holds true for serial murder victims just as it does for solo victims.
Ted Bundy, Joel Rifkin and Gary Ridgway, who killed young, white women, and had tremendous coverage of their crimes by the news media, are powerful examples of this.”
In explaining why serial killers are depicted as white males, the argument is that society (via the media) only cares about white victims. Since intraracial murder is more common than interracial murder, concentrating on white killers allows concentration on white victims. This gets Bonn round to the Standard Progressive Line that we are all racist towards brown victims and care about brown deaths less than white ones.
Yet within this explanation there are direct contradictions of the point he is making. When he named black serial killers, for example, those he named are actually famous as well and several had the kind of dramatic, sensationalist ‘killer names’ that signal media attention on them. When he says serial killers who are white get more attention because their victims are beautiful white women, his examples include Nicole Brown Jackson as the “quintessential victim”, whose killer of course was the black icon O.J.Simpson.
Since O,J. was famously found not guilty when his guilt was startlingly obvious, his case doesn’t suggest any of the things that Bonn says it suggests. It doesn’t explain a focus on white serial killers because the killer is black. And it doesn’t suggest greater care and consideration for the beautiful white female victim because the beautiful white female victim doesn’t get even the posthumous justice of her obvious killer being imprisoned. Instead, the Simpson result suggested either that black jurors are racists who don’t care when white girls are murdered, or that judges and the justice system are more scared of convicting famous black men than they are of convicting an average white guy.
Either way, if it’s showing any societal racism, the Simpson example shows racism towards white people and towards a beautiful white victim. The opposite of Bonn’s point.
But could racism explain a concentration on white killers in a way that Bonn didn’t even consider, and in a way that psychologists who reference the “missing white woman syndrome” automatically exclude as well? What if it’s not about racism towards innocent black victims of serial killers, but instead about racism towards innocent white men who aren’t serial killers.
What if presenting serial killers as white ALL the time in media and fiction stems from a fear of ‘negative stereotyping’ black men, or a desire to negatively stereotype white men? What if the concentration on white serial killers is deliberate, out of racism towards whites? What if it’s actually part and parcel of lying about how bad black crime figures are, and how disproportionately non white groups engage in crime and violence generally? What if people actively use the white serial killer trope to counteract the actual real world reality that, in most crimes and especially sex crimes and serious violence including murder, First World white males are less criminal and dangerous than either First World ethnic minorities or Third World imported migrants?
Isn’t it likely that depictions of serial killers would follow a general and pervasive modern cultural predisposition (deliberately advanced by media, entertainment and academia) which assumes that it is morally good to emphasise white evil and crime and morally required and good to underestimate non-white evil and crime. Wouldn’t that make it consistent with entertainment that refuses to show any form of racism unless it is white on non-white racism, or that talks about 19th century slavery while ignoring 21st century slavery, or that demands that we lie about the likely behaviour of people coming from cultures of high crime, low trust, and commonplace rape and violence?
Wouldn’t it also be a counterpoint to another real world media reporting reality, which is that of withholding the names and racial details of rapists, crininals and murderers who turn out to be non white or who are migrants or who are asylum seekers? Emphasis on white serial killers gives an argument and example when trying to ignore or excuse non-white killers and criminals (“well actually, I think you will find that most serial killers are white males….” as the reply to any truth on imported killers).
Or how about the real world incredible media emphasis on black victims of racial assault such as Stephen Lawrence, which far surpasses media reporting on white victims of racial assault like Kriss Donald? That, too, would be consistent with a culture and media being routinely dishonest and selective regarding crime and murder in a racist anti-white way.
The unreliable narrator, it should be recognised, is everywhere. And paychologists are just as prone to this as journalists are.
This article (Race, Psychology and the Unreliable Narrators on Immigration and Murder) was created and published by Jupplandia and is republished here under “Fair Use”
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply