REVERSE APARTHEID in America has 3 CLASSES: Believer, Acquiescer, and Exploiter. The Believers are the hardcore antiwhite ideologues: Jews, blacks, other nonwhites who possess virulent antiwhite hatred, and whites who possess virulent self-hatred. The Acquiescers are the whites who aren’t pleased with a racially tiered system in which they comprise the ass-end; they aren’t thrilled that hiring, academia, medical care, criminal justice, entertainment, government policy, and damn near everything else in America must be viewed from the perspective of “how does this, or how can this, benefit nonwhites above whites?”; and they’re not enthused about the fact that anything seen as “too white” must be criticized and curbed. But the system still allows them to make a living, albeit with a few new hurdles, so they bite their tongue and go along to get along. And the Exploiters are the corporate entities that see the apartheid as just another fad to milk.
AMERICAN APARTHEID BY DAVID COLE FOR TAKIS MAG
One prediction I’ll make with certitude is that the racial apartheid I’ve written about so many times over the years is here to stay. A two-tiered racially stratified de facto apartheid in which whites are disfavored is our inexorable future (technically, it’s already our present; all that remains is for mainstream leftists to take that small step from “it’s not happening” to “it’s happening and it’s good,” a step more and more take each month).
Like it or not, the new apartheid has become institutionalized. By that I don’t mean government-mandated (though to whatever extent Democrats can get away with mandating it governmentally—which is a lot—and to whatever extent Republicans let them get away with it—which is always—it is). I mean that antiwhiteness, the “decentering” of whites (to use the left’s favorite term), has become a machine that’s self-perpetuating beyond ideological belief.
An ideological state becomes permanent when it no longer has to be propelled by the ideologues who created it; when the machine can go on autopilot. The new system becomes accepted as “the way things are,” and everyone just starts to live with it. Even if they don’t care for it, they learn to function within its confines.
In any ideological state, be it Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, any Islamic state, etc., you have the true believers who get the thing going and police purity of belief. And you have the unbelievers who only go along because they have to. If given a choice, they’d rather not live under the prevailing orthodoxy. But they have mouths to feed, if even just their own, so they choose the path of least resistance.
And then you have the exploiters. These are the crafty opportunists who take advantage of the believers. They know that the central weakness of a believer is a pathological need for hegemony. Believers know that they’re the rightness and the truth, so they never suspect those who suddenly “come around.” The believers’ childish psychological need for reinforcement makes them easy to sheer, as they don’t suspect the motivations of those who jump on the bandwagon (and coincidentally profit from it).
Three classes: believer, acquiescer, exploiter. Applying this to our current apartheid, the believers are the hardcore antiwhite ideologues: Jews, blacks, other nonwhites who possess virulent antiwhite hatred, and whites who possess virulent self-hatred. The acquiescers are the whites who aren’t pleased with a racially tiered system in which they comprise the ass-end; they aren’t thrilled that hiring, academia, medical care, criminal justice, entertainment, government policy, and damn near everything else in America must be viewed from the perspective of “how does this, or how can this, benefit nonwhites above whites?”; and they’re not enthused about the fact that anything seen as “too white” must be criticized and curbed. But the system still allows them to make a living, albeit with a few new hurdles, so they bite their tongue and go along to get along.
And the exploiters are the corporate entities that see the apartheid as just another fad to milk. They’re not thinking long-term societal repercussions. Part of it is simple profiteering, and part of it is the standard dynamic of younger hires justifying their existence and establishing dominance over older ones by claiming to be “connected” to what’s supposedly hip and edgy. The rightist cliché “go woke go broke” is graveyard-whistling. “Hah! That antiwhite Netflix show just bombed! Wokeness is dead!” A most unrealistic metric. That ten out of a hundred antiwhite shows fail is not a victory. Antiwhiteness still saturates the marketplace. That not all the content succeeds doesn’t diminish the saturation. There’s zero coming from corporate America that challenges the antiwhite agenda. You have corporate messaging that’s either pro-apartheid or neutral, but never anti-apartheid.
Yet these three classes—believer, acquiescer, and exploiter—aren’t enough to put the machine on autopilot. True believers are always a minority, as are exploiters. And reluctant acquiescers see the machine as a burden. The ideology doesn’t help them; they’d be happy if the system collapsed, as it brings them no benefit. Their lack of resistance protects the system, but doesn’t further it.
It’s a fourth class that propels the machine. The mediocre, the fat middle of the bell curve of any demographic group. The people lacking significant talent or skill. Not the tards, but the average, the unexceptional. The uninspired cogs who, judged on merit, would never rise above mediocrity. This huge demographic thrives when a system introduces something other than merit by which value is measured.
“Klaus isn’t the best worker, but he’s a dedicated National Socialist. We need men like him.”
“Georgy isn’t the sharpest tool, but a more committed Leninist you won’t find.”
“Amir is as useless as a camel fart, but his devotion to the Koran is inspiring.”
These are normal folks who—whether they’re conscious of the dynamic or not—benefit from a system in which the enthusiastic repetition of the orthodoxy’s mantras becomes a substitute for ability. They’re not true believers, they’re not calculating exploiters, and they’re not reluctant acquiescers. The mediocre embrace the system because it removes the need to be exceptional. Hell, it removes the need to be adequate. And by sheer numbers (and yes, even among whites the bell curve bulge is comprised of the unexceptional), the people who benefit from this new standard become the core of the machine.
Right now in America if you dress up pedestrian or subpar output in the trappings of diversity, inclusion, and equity (DIE), your output becomes not just good but the best. When you read about how failing hospitals are pushing their commitment to DIE even as their patients literally die, there’s a tendency to put the hearse before the horse. We look at the situation and think, “An outrage! The new racial apartheid is forcing fine institutions to lower standards!”
Okay, maybe. Or perhaps there are a certain number of people at these institutions—workers and management alike—who are grateful to be relieved of the burden of having to be good at what they do. Rightists complain about how every institution, from medical schools to NASA to the USGS, has now declared that there’s no mandate greater than DIE (I just randomly guessed USGS; try it—think of any major agency or institution, and you’ll find that it’s rebranded as DIE-first). The immediate instinct is to claim that these institutions are being forcibly corrupted by the new racial orthodoxy. But it’s a mistake to view this as the result of arm-twisting. The new apartheid wouldn’t be half as dangerous if it were all force and coercion, if no one benefited beyond a small number of affirmative-action hires and diversity HR czars.
I think it’s more apt to liken the new apartheid to a welfare state. Something that gets people hooked on sloth.
Here’s a comparison: Once the federal government got to the point where it employs as many Americans as it does, it stopped mattering whether or not it functions well. Its function became the employment of those people. Generations of people. The machine self-perpetuates because it provides easy work for the unexceptional.
Once every workplace task, every company goal, becomes about spouting verbiage about centering nonwhites, how [insert product or company name here] is beneficial to nonwhites, how [insert product or company name here] has been too white-centered in the past, and how even with all the progress that’s been made, there’s still so much work to be done, once that supplants any other gauge of success or measure of results, the person who can memorize the language and kata of the apartheid and repeat it with gusto gets a leg up on the person with actual skills.
Sure, everything will go to shit. Everything always does in an ideological state. But the state keeps chugging along once it becomes of benefit to enough people.
And today you can just feel the permanence. You can feel that we’re in the “learning to work within it” phase, as opposed to the “stop it from happening” phase. Every day there’s some new example of the apartheid in action. This morning? Whites banned from Berkeley off-campus housing. Yesterday? Oat milk is too white; coffee establishments must buy creamer from nonwhite businesses. Two days ago? Minneapolis teachers approve contract with a stipulation that whites get fired first. There’s literally one a day, covering matters big and small, public and private sector. There’ll be ten more between the time I write this and when you read it (and those are only the ones that make the news).
So we get angry and shake our fists. And we move on.
Remember back in May when Dropbox senior director Jasmine Friedl enthusiastically admitted that she gives preferential hiring treatment based on antiwhiteness? She went so far as to state that she even favors overrepresented nonwhite groups over whites (i.e., her policies aren’t about forging numerical parity, but specifically not hiring whites for the sake of it).
Everyone on the right shook their fist—shakedy-shakedy-shake-shake—and have you thought about it since?
There are people who swear that this barrage will eventually motivate whites to fight back! Yep, just you wait. You can only push us around so much, see? M’yeah, see?
Enjoy the wishful thinking. The barrage more likely means that the apartheid’s firmly entrenched.
We’re in the harm-reduction phase; too late for prevention. And any harm reduction must be done using the language of the apartheid, in much the same way that people in Muslim nations who try to liberalize the laws still have to wrap their proposals in an Islamic shroud. A “reformer” in Iran can’t say, “To hell with basing our laws on Islam!” He has to say, “I believe we can loosen the rules a little without giving offense to the great principles of Islam under which of course we must all live.”
Nobody at CPAC last week dared challenge the core tenet of the apartheid (“White alone is bad; adding nonwhite always makes everything better”). Steve Bannon devoted his talk to the need to get “55 or 60 percent of the Hispanic vote” and then “show them that we earned that vote by action.”
Yep, it’s all about getting nonwhites on board and proving yourself to them. The value of something is measured by how not-white it is. Bannon speaks the language of the apartheid as vigorously as any leftist.
Because the apartheid is the system now. Even “reformers” must acknowledge its fundamentals and speak its tongue.
Shake your fist if it makes you feel better.
You can tell your grandkids living as second-class citizens that you did your best.
THE “USEFUL NEGROES” SYNDROME BACKFIRES BY DAVID COLE FOR TAKIS MAG
Golem tales always follow the same template: A Jew builds a monster of clay to destroy his enemies, but in the end the golem turns on its creator.
In 2019, in a piece that generated unintended national controversy, I wrote about immigrant golems. This week, I’ll examine the homegrown ones.
George Soros is a golem creator extraordinaire. An atheist Jew who fancies neither Israel nor communism, Soros defies the easy anti-Jewish conspiracy theory stereotypes. But in fact Soros is not difficult to understand. He’s defined by his youth in WWII Hungary, watching with pride as his attorney father outsmarted the Nazis, keeping his family out of the camps and providing forged papers to keep other Jews out of the camps.
Soros frequently describes the war years as his happiest, and he’s lived a life of trying to replicate those years. He still sees himself as under occupation by gentile racists. Hungarian Jews during the war were not like Polish Jews; they weren’t impoverished and ghettoized. They were prosperous and integrated. Hence, Soros’ personal prosperity doesn’t lessen his fantasy; he doesn’t associate occupation with destitution. There’s still a Reich to defeat, and the Nazi-fighting torch has passed from father to son.
To battle his present-day (imaginary) Nazis, Soros has constructed an assembly line of black golems. He’s devoted his fortune ($32 billion just since 2017) to shielding black criminals from prosecution and incarceration. Every day in cities across the U.S., black thugs with Soros-bought immunity from consequences venture forth to murder, steal, rape, and assault.
For Soros, this is war, and every murder committed by one of his blacks is its own mini-Dresden, another blow against fascist Western Christendom.
Now, let’s compare Soros with another influential leftist Jew, one whose motivations were spelled out in a tell-all book by his daughter.
Herbert Aptheker (1915–2003) was a wealthy Brooklynite and one of the most prominent American communists of the 20th century. A friend and benefactor to Angela Davis and dozens of lesser black “revolutionaries,” Aptheker devoted his life to encouraging black militancy and pushing blacks to “burn down the system” (he even authored what could be considered the 20th-century version of the 1619 Project in an effort to encourage black radicalism).
We know what drove Aptheker, because his daughter Bettina wrote extensively about it in her autobiography:
My father rejected Judaism as a religious practice in the face of the Holocaust, detesting what he saw as the acquiescence of the Jewish people in their own destruction, and the failure of any God (Jewish or otherwise) to stop such a catastrophe…. My mother hated the Chasids. When she saw one on the street she would sputter and curse, nearly spitting in her rage. Her fury frightened me. She despised even the most reformed expressions of Jewish religion, referring to anything religious with bitter sarcasm and contempt. Zionism was unmentionable…. My father had substituted black people for Jews in his work. That is, he made black people larger than life by erasing their foibles and failures. This was to compensate for his deep shame about the way, he believed, the Jews had acted during the Holocaust.
What we have with Aptheker and Soros is “the same but different.” Two atheist Jews, hostile to faith and unmoved by Zionism, seeking vengeance for the Holocaust, using blacks as proxy soldiers. But whereas Soros’ Holocaust origin story is one of pride (pride in his father’s accomplishments, and a desire to carry on his family’s noble Nazi-fighting heritage), Aptheker’s is one of shame (shame in the perceived failures and weaknesses of his fellow Jews).
Aptheker railed against Jewish Holocaust “collaborators.” As Bettina tells it, he despised “Jews [who] had collaborated with the Nazis,” even though that “collaboration” often involved “very complicated circumstances.” Still, “These instances of collaboration seemed to be the entirety of my father’s focus, the place of his guilt and rage.”
Soros is exactly one of those “complicated” collaborators; as a teen under Nazi occupation he masqueraded as a gentile and even assisted in confiscating the belongings of deported Jews.
Studying how Aptheker, architect of 1960s black political violence, and Soros, architect of post-2000 unconstrained black street violence, are “the same but different” is edifying. Aptheker, tormented by self-loathing (which he visited upon his daughter via beatings and sexual molestation), viewed his stock as filthy and worthless, abject failures who fell to the Nazis without resistance. In blacks, Aptheker saw fearless warriors who could fight the Nazis as Jews should’ve. Soros, on the other hand, sees his stock as good and noble, canny survivors who beat the Nazis then and will do so again now.
To Aptheker, blacks are to be idealized; the true übermenschen. To Soros, blacks are a tool, no more superior than a hammer.
Aptheker and Soros traveled different roads, albeit from the same starting point (the Holocaust) and to the same conclusion (blacks as instruments). Two golem builders, but with different blueprints. Aptheker, a doctrinaire communist, didn’t just want his black golems to wreak destruction. Sure, that was a part of it. But they were also supposed to build a Marxist utopia.
Aptheker lived to see the death of that dream. Bettina’s book details her dad’s disillusionment as his black “revolutionaries” drifted from ideological violence to common thuggery.
But surely Soros, who expects nothing of his blacks but common thuggery, must be quite satisfied with his golems. Are they not giving the creator exactly what he desires? Whereas Aptheker tried to turn blacks into disciplined political partisans armed not only with guns but with the teachings of Mao, Soros has no desire to do any Reading Rainbow bullshit. He doesn’t want to teach them, or change them. He wants to unleash what’s already inside them: “Go be your worst you, and I’ll ensure there are no consequences.”
Low-effort, high-yield goleming.
So how can it go wrong?
Well, we’re seeing how right now.
Soros has recently suffered several key defeats, one of which it’s guaranteed you haven’t heard about.
We’ll start with that one.
Soros is like an online pedophile, but instead of trolling for small children he looks for useful negroes. About ten years ago, he thought he’d found a good ’un. Rev. William Barber is, well, was (we’ll get to that) president of the North Carolina NAACP (the largest chapter in the South, and the second-largest nationwide). Since 2001, Barber, a man of most generous girth (known locally as the “Round Rev”), has been saddled with a troublesome underling: Rev. Curtis Gatewood, president of the Durham branch and 2nd vice president of the North Carolina NAACP Conference of Branches. Gatewood achieved notoriety after 9/11 for essentially saying “whitey deserved to get blowed up,” and since then he’s wished death (or hosted those who wish death) upon whites, cops, Jews, Israel, Asians, Latinos, and even Obama (for not being radical enough).
The national NAACP wanted Gatewood gone, as he was saying way too many quiet parts out loud. But year after year Barber withstood the pressure to fire him. And the more Barber defied the national office, the more popular he grew at home.
This attracted Soros’ attention: an NAACP state president willing to defend a “kill whitey” maniac against the entire NAACP leadership.
A 2016 hack of Soros org documents revealed that Barber was specifically targeted by Soros for grooming. Soros put Barber on the payroll, and the two of them secretly funneled money to Gatewood’s “HK on J” subgroup (a more radical N.C. NAACP appendage).
Flush with Soros cash, Barber took some steps toward greater radicalism, fomenting local civil unrest and inflaming anti-cop sentiment.
But this year, it all came crashing down in spectacular fashion. Long story short, in between killin’ whitey, Gatewood was chasin’ booty, sexually harassing his branch’s female members. At first, Barber covered for him. But when enough “magic black girls” demanded action, the national NAACP finally had an excuse to dump both loose cannons without looking weak on the whitey question. Barber “resigned” and Gatewood was sacked. Always the rational one, Gatewood, furious at Barber for not protecting him “better,” accused Barber of financial mismanagement as state president, which led to a media investigation and the revelation that the Round Rev may have been pocketing much of the Soros lucre that was supposed to have gone to rioting.
Soros lost control of the N.C. chapter. Worse still, he realized his useful negro had played him for a chump.
That was June, the same month Soros lost his favorite minion Chesa Boudin in San Francisco. This month, Soros lost Marilyn Mosby, his Baltimore City State’s Attorney, and it looks like his handpicked Baltimore County State’s Attorney candidate Robbie Leonard is going to lose as well. On top of that, the recall of L.A. DA George Gascon looks likely to make the ballot.
Barber, Gatewood, Mosby, Boudin, and probably Leonard and Gascon. Six losses in a month.
Soros’ golems aren’t behaving. In N.C., Soros paid for riots. Gatewood used that money to chase skirts and Barber used it for his $3,000-a-day BBQ ribs habit. Soros chose Mosby to rain more death and disorder upon Baltimore (if that’s even possible), but she spent her days skimming (for which she’s been federally indicted). Soros poured millions into BLM and what did he get? A bunch of LaQueenies buying mansions with their baby-daddies.
Ironically, post-Floyd riot fervor was lessened, not furthered, by Soros’ money (and the money from all the other gullible leftists who donated in 2020). The gravy train distracted BLM leadership from actual activism. Remember that prior to Floyd’s death, the weave-wearing heifers who came to lead BLM were busting up fast food joints because they fries be cold.
Soros thought he could throw money at that trash and get disciplined partisans in return.
Aptheker’s error, repeated.
Okay, but what about Boudin, Gascon, and Leonard, who aren’t black? There’s no money malfeasance there. They did exactly as ordered, using black criminals to sow mayhem.
Yeah, too much mayhem. Whereas the “ideological” black golems took the money and ran, the thuggish black golems were incapable of showing restraint once incarceration was taken off the table. Too many murders, too many assaults. If Soros thought he could rely on his golems to go slow enough to avoid backlash, he was wrong. L.A., S.F., and Baltimore will tolerate a lot from blacks; when you alienate those cities, you know your golems have gone too far.
Soros is a dinosaur, as was Aptheker. Jews with vendettas rooted in the Holocaust and romanticized visions of using blacks as proxies like it’s 1955 when black leftists were deferential and the most radical thing you could call them was equal. Now that every black has to be called “magic” and “brilliant,” and now that blacks have had a taste of “progressive prosecution,” decarceration, defunded and defanged police, and zero-consequence rioting, the ghetto golems have become uncontrollable.
In Jewish literature, that’s always where the story ends.
Now, in real life, we get to see what comes next.
THE GEOGRAPHY OF HOMICIDE BY STEVE SAILER FOR TAKIS MAG
Everybody has an opinion on matters of crime and race, but not that many people are familiar with the facts. So I’m going to devote this column to furnishing basic data about the best documented and most important crime, homicide.
The single most important fact about crime in the United States is the extraordinarily high rate at which African Americans die violently: almost ten times the rate of white Americans. That’s one of the most gigantic racial ratios in all the social sciences.
In contrast, Hispanics, who are roughly comparable to blacks in average income, education, and age, die by homicide just over twice as often as whites. The black homicide death rate is thus 4.8 times the Hispanic rate, a gap that is hard to explain in any politically correct fashion, so almost nobody ever mentions it.
The second-highest homicide rate is among American Indians, who die violently over four times as often as whites. Asians get killed only half as much as whites.
Despite making up only about one-eighth of the population, over half of homicide victims in the U.S. are black, with a little over a quarter being white. In all likelihood, a pie chart of perps would be even more lopsided.
My source is the CDC’s WONDER database for mortality statistics from 2018 to 2021, which tracks deaths by homicide. (Homicides are a superset of murders and manslaughters, including both crimes and justifiable killings. But homicides tend to be an informative proxy for murders.)
Note that the CDC tracks the race of victims, but not the race of perpetrators. Presumably, the offending rate of groups that get killed a lot, such as blacks, tend to be even somewhat higher than their victimization rate—the FBI counts blacks as 56.5 percent of known murder offenders in 2020—while those with low rates of dying by homicide, such as Asians, probably do unto others even less often than they are done unto. But most killings are intraracial, so counting victims can help us get a general sense of the number of perpetrators.
Crime shot upward in 2020, whether due to Black Lives Matter declaring the “racial reckoning,” the pandemic, increased gun purchases, stimulus checks, sunspots, or whatever. A simple way of measuring the change is to compare total homicides in the two years 2020–2021 with the previous pair of years, 2018–2019. It might not have seemed like it at the time, but in hindsight, 2018–2019 were the Good Old Days.
Over the past two years, black homicide deaths shot up 45 percent, Hispanics 37 percent, whites 17 percent, American Indians 16 percent, and Asians (whose victimizations have probably gotten the most publicity per capita) 9 percent.
More concern should be paid to the fact that Hispanics, after becoming notably better behaved since the 1990s, have regressed considerably over the past two years. More than anybody else during America’s tough-on-crime decades, Latinos seemed to get the message. Their murder rate declined relative to blacks and whites (and my vague impression is that they also drive drunk less often than in the 20th century).
But, as The Establishment signaled over the past two years that they were just kidding about rule of law, more Hispanics seemed to have decided that the gringos weren’t serious anymore about law and order.
There’s much discussion in the respectable press about legal gun purchases as being the cause (rather than, more likely, the effect) of the historic increase in shootings. It’s difficult to find statistics on what percentage of murders are committed with legally owned guns, but the CDC data lets you calculate the share of homicides due to gunfire rather than knives, blunt objects, fists, poison, or whatever. Among black homicide victims, 87 percent died by firearms compared with only 56 percent of American Indians, 62 percent of Asians, 63 percent of whites, and 75 percent of Latinos.
As you might guess from rap lyrics, African American culture tends to encourage knuckleheads to use guns to settle beefs. Native Americans are also quite violent, but they aren’t as quick to resort to guns.
America has a high homicide rate for a first-world country, although over half of that number is due to African Americans.
The African American homicide rate is similar to that of cartel-plagued Mexico, and lags Nigeria, South Africa, and Jamaica. According to a U.N. list, the highest-known homicide rate is in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Jeffrey Epstein’s favorite place to relax.
Not surprisingly, within the U.S., a state’s total homicide rate tends to correlate closely with how black its population is:
If you count Washington, D.C., as a state, the correlation coefficient is a very high r = 0.82.
New Mexico stands out as a state with a high murder rate despite very few blacks. Georgia, which increasingly attracts middle-class black migrants, is an outlier in the opposite direction, with a relatively low murder rate for its high proportion of African Americans.
Following the general pattern laid out in historian David Hackett Fischer’s Albion’s Seed, Northeastern, North Central, and Mormon West whites have a homicide victimization rate similar to one of the more violent Western European countries such as gangster-ridden Belgium, remote Finland, or hard-drinking Britain:
Southern, hillbilly, and Wild West whites tend to get killed at rates more like Eastern Europeans.
The black homicide rate is twice as high in the safest state (Massachusetts) as the white rate in the most dangerous state (Mississippi). States in light blue have missing data:
Still, there are major differences among states in the black rate. The pattern, though, is perhaps unexpected: As far as I can tell, blacks tend to get themselves killed the most in states, north or south, near the Mississippi, Ohio, and Missouri Rivers.
In recent years, due to the Ferguson Effect, the black rate has been the worst in the state of Missouri, followed by Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. I don’t have a good sense of whether this is a recent development due to the Ferguson and Floyd Effects, a medium-term reality (possibly due to the hollowing out of American industry), or whether the Mississippi watershed has always had a higher black murder rate. Fischer talked about Louisiana being highly violent ever since its founding by the French, but what about blacks farther north?
One bit of good news is that the black homicide rate tends to be below the national black average in the warmer states that have been attracting black migrants in recent years, such as Georgia, Florida, and Texas. On the other hand, as blacks and immigrants pour into these traditionally business-friendly Republican states, will the new Democratic voters kill the goose that laid the golden egg?
If you divide the black homicide rate by the white rate to get the racial ratio, you’ll find that the races are somewhat less unequal in the South. The lowest black-white ratio at 4.8 to 1 is in West Virginia, where the whites tend to be ornery and the blacks relatively well-behaved.
The biggest racial gaps are found in the North Central states with their well-behaved whites, especially Wisconsin and Illinois, where blacks are 25 times more likely than whites to die by homicide. One theory for this is that the Illinois Central railway brought welfare-seeking Deep South blacks to Illinois in the 1960s and then to naive Wisconsin in the 1970s.
The black homicide rate grew from 2018–19 to 2020–21 in all states with enough sample size to measure:
The worst increase was near the epicenter of the Floyd Effect in Minneapolis. Black homicides in Iowa were up 119 percent, in Minnesota 113 percent, Nebraska 93 percent, and Wisconsin (home of the Jacob Blake riots in Kenosha) 92 percent. Kentucky, where BLM had a martyr in Breonna Taylor, also stands out, as do Connecticut and New York.
For a big state, Florida had a relatively small increase of only 23 percent.
Way back in 1760, Ben Franklin wrote a pamphlet attempting to explain to the British government the future world-historical importance of the Mississippi watershed: Whoever ruled it would dominate the 20th century.
That came true.
But in the 21st century, we seem to be letting the country fall apart.