The Thinking 
Housewife
 

A City Transformed by Black Crime

November 25, 2011

 

ALAN writes:

Your recent remark about vile crimes perpetrated by blacks and the absence of outrage against them prompted these thoughts. I write from the city of St. Louis, which is notorious for being infested with crime, most of it perpetrated by young black males. The mayor and all public officials know this to be true but do everything they can to deny it and whitewash it.

I have read many issues of The St. Louis Police Journal from 80-100 years ago. It is refreshing to see how crime was reported and dealt with then, as against how it is not reported and dealt with by today’s “newspapers” and “law enforcement” agencies drunk on diversity-and-multiculti worship.  

In each weekly issue of the Police Journal, a wealth of details was reported in plain language in two justified columns of fine print on every page. The men who wrote and published the Police Journal were not diversity-and-multiculti worshippers. They did not stop to worry whether what they wrote might “offend” anyone, least of all criminal thugs.  

The journal featured articles advocating execution for murderers and degenerates, and bullets as the proper response to armed robbers. Rape and assault were punishable by hanging.  

Unlike today, “minorities” were not protected species. Criminals were identified by name, race, address, and previous criminal record. Articles in 1920s’ issues included: “Bold Negro Purse Snatcher is Caught by Alert Detectives,” “Arrested A Negro Ruffian,” “Arrested A Negro Brute,” “Arrest of Three Negro Burglars Clears Up Several Crimes,” and “Negro Accident Faker Who Filed 300 Claims Gets 7-Year Term.” 

That is how police officers and reporters wrote and spoke a hundred years ago: candidly and truthfully. But that was long before the great surrender to the diversity-and-multiculti agitators, whose effect has been to render American law even more emasculated than it was in the wake of the “liberals,” the feminists, the “civil rights” agitators, and the bleeding-heart legislators and judges.

Today, unrestrained black thugs are permitted to control streets in neighborhoods where my elderly grandfather went for leisurely walks in the 1950s without the slightest concern for his safety.  

On a sunny morning last April, a 72-year-old Asian man was walking in one of those neighborhoods when an 18-year-old black thug punched and kicked him savagely, causing him to die later that day. A hundred years ago, that thug would have been hung. It is a measure of the decadence of modern American culture that he has not been (and will not be) made to pay for his despicable act by being executed. Such thugs are arrogant and brazen precisely because they know “the law” is now thoroughly feminized and soft.

Three days ago, a 54-year-old man was assaulted and punched by a group of young people in another such crime in a neighborhood that was built and settled by German families and maintained its reputation as a peaceful and pleasant area to live for decades afterward but is now one of the most crime-infested neighborhoods in St. Louis.  

Last May, a 28-year-old black woman beat and strangled her 18-month-old son and then deposited him in a trash bin in the same block where my mother lived as a girl in the 1920s.

In separate incidents within the past three months, three people – all black – have been murdered along a street that thrived with dozens of stores and hundreds of shoppers – all white – fifty years ago but without any such murders.

Examples like this could be multiplied a thousand times a thousand times. To “punish” a jungle-savage killer with room and board, medical care, music, a library, color TV, and the likelihood of parole is not a penalty on him; it is a penalty on all citizens who do not go around punching and kicking people savagely for the fun of it.  

If such vicious crimes have not provoked national outrage and action to accompany it, then this nation is dead.

 

                                          — Comments —

Buck writes:

Why isn’t every crime and certainly every crime pattern published weekly in every local paper, or announced in a regular segment on every local TV news channel? 

Are we being shielded from the truth because we are strong and would react with a vengeance? Or, are we being protected by our betters because we’re weak and frail, and our betters know that we would collapse and wither away at the sight of our own lying dead on the coroner’s slab? Does the modern liberal ruling authority feel that we need to be protected from the truth for our own good or that the protection is for the criminals whom they deem to be our historical victims? What possible reason could our government, our police departments and our media have for hiding the truth about crime and about who is committing it, and against who it is being committed? 

That was a tedious stream of rhetorical questions. Most people would say, “Look away, it’s too horrible. Put it out of your minds, it’ll just make you feel worse. You know that there’s nothing to be done about it, short of taking the law into your own hands. You know how that will end. Just keep quiet and look out for yourself. You won’t be around much longer anyway.”

As for the overall racial patterns in crime, you can find out about restriping your parking lot to be in ADA compliance, or under Religious Freedom in Focus, about how we protect the rights of Muslims to build mosques wherever they want. There’s a lot, and I mean a whole lot of information here. But, the most important information –  which groups are committing more crimes against who – is purposely hidden from us. Why?

Laura writes:

Some local newspapers do report all the crimes committed in their areas. Papers in more densely populated areas often do not. Generally, in my experience as a newspaper reporter, the police wll give a full physical description of any suspects if they are asked to provide it. Newspapers often chose not to print this information. They do often publish it when a suspect is at large, in which case the physical details are considered relevant and important. For instance in the recent case of Kevin Neary, the press reported that the assailant, who had not yet been arrested, was black.

I believe the reason why race is not mentioned more often is the very reason you note, and that is the fear of inflaming the anger of whites.

 

 

 

 

Share:Email this to someoneShare on Facebook0Tweet about this on TwitterPin on Pinterest0Share on Google+0