The Color of Crime 2016

Edwin Rubenstein has published a report about crime in the US. As usual, it is an indictment on ‘Africans‘ and ‘Hispanics’. However, some of his figures are wrong (at least as far as I can tell). For instance, the report’s figure 5 (shown below) would indicate that ‘Asians’ are 2.3 times more likely than ‘whites’ to commit murder.

Color of Crime 2016

However, normalized figures (Norm. Rate) from the New York source would produce the following figures, all of which are different from Rubenstein’s figure. The same occurs for figure 6 in the report.


An email sent to Rubenstein three months ago about these issues remains unanswered.


Stereotypes at Dawn

Ryan, C. and C. Jetha. 2011. Sex at Dawn: How We Mate, Why We Stray, and What It Means for Modern Relationships. New York, USA: Harper Perennial.

As a way of testing this hypothesis, we should find that relative penis and testicle data differ among racial and cultural groups. These differences—theoretically due to significant and consistent differences in the intensity of sperm competition in recent historical times—are what we do find, if we dare to look.

Because fit is so important in the effectiveness of condoms, World Health Organization guidelines specify different sizes for various parts of the world: a 49-millimeter-width condom for Asia, a 52-millimeter width for North America and Europe, and a 53-millimeter width for Africa (all condoms are longer than most men will ever need). The condoms manufactured in China for their domestic market are 49 millimeters wide. According to a study conducted by the Indian Council of Medical Research, high levels of slippage and failure are due to a bad fit between many Indian men and the international standards used in condom manufacture.

According to an article published in Nature, Japanese and Chinese men’s testicles tend to be smaller than those of Caucasian men, on average. The authors of the study concluded that “differences in body size make only a slight contribution to these values.” Other researchers have confirmed these general trends, finding average combined testes weights of 24 grams for Asians, 29 to 33 grams for Caucasians, and 50 grams for Africans. Researchers found “marked differences in testis size among human races. Even controlling for age differences among samples, adult male Danes have testes that are more than twice the size of their Chinese equivalents, for example.” This range is far beyond what average racial differences in body size would predict. Various estimates conclude that Caucasians produce about twice the number of spermatozoa per day than do Chinese (185–235 × 106 compared with 84 × 106).

These are dangerous waters we’re swimming in, dear reader, suggesting that culture, environment, and behavior can be reflected in anatomy—genital anatomy, at that. But any serious biologist or physician knows there are anatomical differences expressed racially. Despite the hair-trigger sensitivity of these issues, not to consider racial background in the diagnosis and treatment of disease would be unethical.

Crime and Ethnicity II

A European race realist (Pierce 1997) claims that from calculations using the 1995 FBI Supplementary Homicide Report, that compared to Europeans, the propensity for homicide are:

  • ‘Asians’ 1.23 (i.e. 23% more likely)
  • ‘American Indians’ 1.50
  • ‘Hispanics’ 4.80
  • ‘Blacks’ 10.10

Using the Puzzanchera, Chamberlin & Kang (2012) data manipulator here:
and the 1990 U.S. census population stats (as the article was written in 1997), the following results. One notices something strange.

pierceThere is no data for ‘Hispanics’ per se as Puzzanchera, Chamberlin & Kang (2012) does not give data for ethnicity perhaps due to complexity in data presentation. One thus wonders where Pierce got this data. Check for yourself using the major states with ‘Hispanics’ i.e. Texas, California, New Mexico, Arizona, Florida, Nevada. Anyways,

  1. ‘Asians’ are combined with ‘Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders’ thus the ‘Asian’ rate (excluding ‘Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders’) would be < 1.096 and not 1.23
  2. The ‘African’ rate is 7.52 not 10.10
  3. The ‘American Indian’ rate is 1.88 not 1.50

So what gives? Notice how he culls the data: He says:

This supplementary report contains data from those states which break down their crime reports into White, Hispanic, Black, Asian, and American Indian categories. This is important, because many states lump Whites and Hispanics together in the “White” category, so that what such states report as “White” crime is actually White and Hispanic crime. I’ve taken the data just from those states which break down their crime reports into White, Hispanic, Black, Asian, and American Indian in order to be able to make the most accurate and meaningful comparisons between White crime and non-White crime.

So Pierce uses data from some U.S. states but then applies it to the entire country for he says:

What these data show is that in 1995 Asians in the United States committed murders at a rate 1.23 times the White rate.

Quite a poor method for a guy with a PhD in physics. Since the data sources does not allow for the separation of Hispanic ethnicity into a ‘racial’ group, Pierce does seem to be right in that Latinos were/are being categorized with Europeans (and perhaps other groups also) in crimes and this makes for skewed data. This has been termed ‘Hispanic Inflation‘.

So how can we find the actual European homicide rate? We can’t with the available data format but we can normalize the data for increase accuracy. To this end, data for the top five ‘Hispanic’ states (CA, TX, NY, IL, AZ) are removed resulting in a reduction of 61% of the 2010 US Hispanic population from the data set [Data for FL is unavailable for 2010].

The untouched data for 2010 is shown below.

data1The total 2010 homicide per ‘race’ for the 5 states is calculated.

data2The total ‘race’ population of the 5 states (resulting in an inflated European alone group) and separating ‘Asians’ and ‘Pacific Islanders/Hawaiians’ is calculated.

data3The normalized rates are found for separated groups [Norm = normalized, Hom = homicide, Pop = population].


  • Values in red are speculative i.e. they may be more accurate but do not reflect total US rates per ‘race’
  • Values for ‘Asians’ and ‘Pacific Islanders/Hawaiians’ are inflated as the combined API value is used for each group but due to the small ‘Pacific Islanders/Hawaiians’ population, their ratio is subject to more skewing
  • ‘Asian’ includes those of Australoid ancestry (e.g. Indians, Malays) and ‘European’ includes Semites, Turks and Aryans.

Conclusion: Even after removing 61% of the ‘Hispanics’ from the ‘European’ group, ‘Asians’ are still less likely to commit homicides. However, the US ‘African’ population suffers from a ridiculously high homicide rate, even higher than for sex crimes.


1990 Census of Population: General Population Characteristics, Table 3: Race and Hispanic Origin [ ]

2010 Census Briefs. Overview of race and Hispanic Origin: 2010 [ ]

2010 Census Briefs. The Hispanic Population: 2010 [ ]

2010 Census Briefs. The Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Population: 2010 [ ]

Demographics of Asian Americans. Wikipedia. [ ]

List of US States by African American Population. Wikipedia. [ ]

List of US States by Hispanic and Latino Population. Wikipedia. [ ]

Native Americans in the United States. Wikipedia. [ ]

Pierce, William. 1997. The Campaign Against “Hate Crime”: Who Are the Real Haters? Free Speech [magazine] 3(8). [accessed: 2013-06-21].

Puzzanchera, C., Chamberlin, G., and W. Kang. 2012. “Easy Access to the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports: 1980-2010” using data from the FBI Supplementary Homicide Reports 1980-2010.

AMREN 2014: Douglas Whitman

Douglas Whitman (PhD Entomology)
The Evolutionary and Biological Reality of Race
American Renaissance 2014

Whitman’s thesis: We can with high accuracy categorize people into races both visually and through software … thus races exist. Anyone who says otherwise is stupid.

It’s Nicholas Wade all over again.

Whitman uses two examples of how intuitive it is to categorize people into races.

wade 1wade 2Note how Whitman carefully selects only three human phenotypes to facilitate his confirmation bias.

Where would he place a brown Afropean? Or a pink Afropean? Or a dark brown Dravidian or Malay? Would he be able to visually categorize between a Southern Han and a brown Khoisan? What about a brown Aryan, a brown Arab, a brown Turk and a brown Latino? How does one scientifically determine where to lump and/or split?

But what of software? Is software not created by a coder who would input bias if he were looking for racial categories?

Assessing Rushton and Bogaert (1987)

Rushton and Bogaert (1987) asserted:

“We averaged the ethnographic data on erect penis and found the means to approximate: Orientals, 4 to 5.5 in. in length and 1.25 in. in diameter; Caucasians, 5.5 to 6 in. in length and 1.5 in. in diameter; blacks, 6.25 to 8 in. in length and 2 in. in diameter.”

Let’s examine with new average self-reported data from Herbenick et al. (2014).


Given that Herbenick’s study is more recent and rigorous, Rushton and Bogaert’s average values inflate African penile dimensions (erect length and girth) by over 23% while deflating East Asian penile dimensions by over 14% (assuming Herbenick is accurate) [1].

Contra European stereotypes, Herbenick et al. found ‘Asian’ penile length comparable to European (diff. = 0.04cm) and ‘Hispanic’ (diff. = 0.01 cm) lengths. For this and other reasons, there seems to be a lack of race realist commentary on this study.

There has been the usual racist assertion [2] that Herbenick’s average U.S. penile length value of 5.6″ (14.15 cm) is due to East Asian oversampling. A similar claim was made for Wessells, Lue & McAninch (1996), another U.S. study. Given that ‘Asians’ are a U.S. minority and not a priority sample in peer-reviewed studies, claims as these are unsustainable.

The small African sample size (n = 38) may have been due to the study controls which minimized self-reported penile measurement inflation.

This race/history/evolution notes post looks into more of Rushton’s claims.

[1.] Granted Rushton is making a claim about ‘Orientals’ and the ‘Asian’ data from Herbenick may contain South Asians. Rushton does however, conveniently classify African Americans (Afro-Europeans) as ‘black’.

[2.] For example, a commenter claimed: ” …. I bet asians drag down the average overall. Take asians out of the equation and I bet the average is 7 inches.”


Herbenick, D., Reece, M., Schick, V., and S. Sanders. 2014. Erect Penile Length and Circumference Dimensions of 1,661 Sexually Active Men in the United States. The Journal of Sexual Medicine 11(1): 93–101.

Rushton, J., and A. Bogaert. 1987. Race differences in sexual behavior: Testing an evolutionary hypothesis. Journal of Research in Personality 21(4): 529-551.

Wessells, H. Lue T., and J. McAninch. 1996. Penile length in the flaccid and erect states: guidelines for penile augmentation. The Journal of Urology 156(3): 995-997.

Interracial Conspiracies

Here are some race realist conspiracy ‘theories’ on ethnic sexual dynamics in Hollywood visual media.

  • Eurocentric Race Realist: Hollywood wants to promote interracial unions with male and female Europeans [to dilute European purity, as a form of European population control]
  • Afrocentric Race Realist: Hollywood wants to promote African males with European females and European males with African females [to dilute African purity, as a form of African population control, to extract wealth from the African population]
  • East Asian Race Realist: Hollywood wants to promote East Asian females with non-East Asian males and Hollywood does not want to promote East Asian males as heterosexual options [to dilute East Asian purity, as a form of East Asian population control, due to European pedophile tendency, to emasculate East Asian males due to European male insecurity (perhaps due to decreased global European economic clout)]

Here is the 2010 U.S. Census ethnic cohabitation breakdown [1, 5]:

IR statsFrom the above, one may conclude:

  • A substantial number of African males are with European females;
  • A substantial number of Asian males are with European females;
  • All ethnic males desire European females the most;
  • The least desired females are Asian;
  • Asian males are the most willing to cohabit outside of the African, Asian and European ethnic groups (least total %);
  • European males are the least willing to cohabit outside of the African, Asian and European ethnic groups (highest total %);
  • European males are the least to cohabit with non-European females i.e. European males are the most discriminatory;
  • African females are the least willing to cohabit with non-African males i.e. African females are the most discriminatory;
  • Asian males are the most willing to cohabit with non-Asians i.e. Asian males are the least discriminatory;
  • Asian females are the most willing to cohabit with non-Asians i.e. Asian females are the least discriminatory;
  • Most African females stay with African males;
  • A large proportion of Asian females are with European males;
  • European males are the most desired;
  • Asian males are the least desired;
  • Asian females are the most willing to cohabit outside of the African, Asian and European ethnic groups (least total %);
  • African females are the least willing to cohabit outside of the African, Asian and European ethnic groups (highest total %);
  • African males are over 5 times more likely to cohabit with Asian females than African females are with Asian males i.e. African females are more discriminatory towards Asian males; and
  • Asian females are over 4 times more likely to cohabit with African males than Asian males with African females i.e. Asian males are more discriminatory towards African females.

Here is data in other forms:

IR 2IR 1Let’s look at the macro [2] and micro [3] probabilities for ethnic males only.

MacromicroAssuming proportional ethnic male representation [4], the MICRO-probability shows that Hollywood promotes [6]:

  • African male with European females
  • European males with African females
  • European males with Asian females

It is also possible that Hollywood does NOT promote:

  • Asian males with Asian females

Now the micro-data suffers from an ethnic male proportional myopia i.e. it only shows the probability that something should occur given that a particular ethnic male is shown. Given that non-European males (especially East and South Asian) have issues with proportional representation, a much better way to look at the data is through the macro-probability (see notes for hopefully a better explanation).

Once again assuming proportional ethnic male representation, the MACRO-probability shows that Hollywood promotes:

  • European males with African females
  • European males with Asian females

and does not promote:

  • Asian males with Asian females
  • Asian males with European females

Hollywood realistically portrays:

  • African males with European females

Looking at the absolute numbers instead of percentages:

  • Most African males are with African females
  • Asian females are the most likely to live with Europeans even though most are with Asian males
  • Europeans are the least likely to mingle with non-Europeans


The probability that an:

  • African female is chosen by any male: 13.53%
  • Asian female is chosen by any male: 2.73%
  • European female is chosen by any male: 79.47%
  • African male is chosen by any female: 16.11%
  • Asian male is chosen by any female: 1.91%
  • European male is chosen by any female: 77.71%

[Calculated from the sum of micro-probabilities].


The Eurocentric race realist conspiracy is NOT tenable since Hollywood does not promote Asians as sexually available for any type of female.

The Afrocentric race realist conspiracy is NOT tenable as it realistically portrays African males with European females (i.e. 4 times less than for Afro-Afro couples).

However, the East Asian race realist conspiracy is tenable given:

  1. The low level of East Asian male portrayals compared to the high level for East Asian females. East Asian females should proportionally be shown only 1.43 times more that East Asian males (i.e. 2.73/1.91 from ethnic choice probability above);
  2. The low level of Asian-Asian couples; and
  3. The extremely low level of East Asian male-Euro female couples despite census data to the contrary.


[1] Inclusive of Hispanic Africans, Hispanic Asians and Hispanic Europeans. The data format did not make it possible for extracting Latino data from the ‘Hispanic’ data without an overlap. Data from here.
[2] Macro-probability is the actual probability from the U.S. census data and what should be realistically shown in Hollywood. It assumes that an ethnic male character is shown to give the probability of the ethnic cohabitant.
[3] Micro-probability calculated as P(ethnic male) x P(ethnic female cohabitant), this is the probability that a particular cohabitant is shown IF a particular ethnic male character is shown given U.S. census data. This is problematic for non-European characters in Hollywood as they are a clear minority. E.g. P(Afro male, Afro female cohabitant) = 17.06% x 74.93 = 12.78%
[4] Assumes that either the ethnic males or their cohabitants were afforded some character development in whatever Hollywood production i.e. primary and secondary characters, not some visual couple in the background with no speaking lines.
[5] All ‘Asian’ data includes South Asians though this analysis is only concerned with East Asian portrayals as per census data.
[6] This assumes that the reader is familiar with the quantity of so-called interracial pairing in Hollywood offerings. For brevity, there are many Euro male-Asian female, Afro male-Euro female and almost no Asian male-any female relationships. The quality of Asian male pairing is quite another matter and is dismal at best (see the Sum Ting Wong series).

Repost: Do ‘penis size’ studies measure up?

There are many ways men like to be described, but when it comes to describing their penis size, most men would rather keep that a private issue – unless they can claim one of the precarious labels above. Nevertheless, penis size is very important to some people – more often than not, men, in their eternal quest to know if they “measure up.”

But first things first. What is the average length of an erect penis? 5.3 inches? 6 inches? 10 inches? Well, every one of those answers has come up in statistical surveys and self-perception questionnaires. And based on the evidence, the answer is closer to the first two than the latter (which, by the way, is how most men described how big their penis was in a campus survey!). Everyone from esteemed sex researcher Alfred Kinsey to amateur webmasters looking to survey the surfing male public has entered the fray to find out the average length of the erect penis. And, well, there is no one definitive answer. But for argument’s sake (and the overwhelming consensus among scientific and less scientific studies), let’s say it’s in the vicinity of 6 inches, or about 15 centimetres.

Now, when it comes to studies about penis size, figuring out the actual length of the member is a piece of cake. Other studies have strayed into sometimes less straightforward, politically incorrect waters, like what role race plays into the equation. There have long been stereotypes around concerning which races are better endowed or less endowed than others. In fact, even some physicians have added their two cents worth. “My conclusions, I guess, can be based on my observations clinically,” says Dr. Robert Stubbs, a Canadian penis-enhancement surgeon. “I think there is definitely a racial difference, and at this point – and I’m quite prepared to be proven wrong – there are three sizes: black, white and yellow (Asian), in descending order.”

But does this opinion stand up in the court of scientific accuracy? Again, the issue is a murky one. “Anthropological studies from the past 100 years have really documented that, on average, penis size of east Asian males are smaller than western European and North American males,” states Dr. Robert Francoeur, editor of the The International Encyclopedia of Sexuality. “And African males, on average, have a larger penis size.” But Francoeur is also first to admit there are always many exceptions to the rule. So what’s the answer?

Toronto-based physician, Dr. Jerald Bain, who treats men with reproductive disorders, thinks there isn’t yet an answer he’s satisfied with. “But I can tell you from my own personal experience in seeing hundreds and hundreds of men – and I have the added advantage of working in Toronto, a very international city – that there is no difference from one ethnic origin to another,” he says. And, he adds, if his observations are not the real answer, the race card can also be a double-edged sword.

Confused? Bain says that if penis size is related to race – which he says he’s not aware has been scientifically proven anywhere – it might actually make sense. After all, he points out, if Asian men have smaller penises than Caucasians, that may have something to do with the fact that their body build and height have a bearing on the matter. And when it comes to this side of the equation, Bain knows his stuff. Bain has looked at whether the length of a man’s penis can be determined (or guessed) simply by looking at some other less private body parts – like feet.

“We measured their height and found that penis size was related to shoe size – but only insofar as it related to the general size of the man,” explains Bain. Although the statistical relationship was weak, it was there, and taller men tend to have larger appendages of all sorts, including the penis.

But perhaps the biggest question that should be asked is, does penis size matter in the first place? As Stubbs even admits, “penis size studies are meaningless in terms of procreation because if indeed Oriental men are smaller, they’ve populated the world to the greatest extent.” And when it comes right down to it, sex educator Sue Johansen, who doesn’t mince her words, puts it rather plainly: “it really doesn’t matter. Bigger is not better.” So we’ve raised the questions and you still don’t think you’ve heard a satisfactory answer. Well, as with other controversial topics, this is one of those with no simple answers – at least not yet – which makes it one of the most enduring sexual myths.

Just in case there is any confusion, though, here’s what isknown, in plain black and white: the average length of the erect penis is roughly 5.5 to 6 inches. There are no scientific studies to show that penis size and race are related in any meaningful way – and yes, penis size and foot size do have a loose correlation.

So, if you’re a man reading this, where do you fit in? When you find out, keep it quietly to yourself and maybe some of the enduring myths about penis size will fade away. Then again, who am I kidding?

Source: Hunt, Stephen. 2001. Do ‘penis size’ studies measure up? [accessed: 2013-04-25].

I am confused as to why an enhancement surgeon (Dr. Stubbs) would think that those who come to him for help would represent the average of the normal ethnic groups. An email sent to him for clarification is sadly yet unanswered. Quite unfortunately, Dr. Robert Francoeur is dead but if my track record is any indicator, he would not have replied to my emails anyway. His co-author (Dr. Noonan) was kind enough to reply but does not know of the studies to which Francoeur referred. Alas, I believe he meant the same occult French source as used by Rushton (also dead) and Bogaert (refuses to reply to multiple emails).