In today’s news, the Durham, NC police are trying to catch a burglar who ripped off the Choral Society of Durham on Monday, stealing money from an unlocked office during a fundraiser. But in addition to the burglar’s refusal to get religion and turn himself in, the Durham PD is confronted with his powerful accomplice, the local News & Observer newspaper.

The N&O is engaged in a form of obstruction of justice so entrenched at newspapers across the country, and institutionalized in longtime, industry-dominant “style” guidelines at shops like the Associated Press and the New York Times that, not unlike the upper-classes’ attitude regarding their continuous criminal conspiracies violating federal immigration, tax, and labor laws through the hiring of illegal immigrants, the criminals (aka “editors,” “producers,” and “reporters”) involved think of their acts as their birthright.

When police ask for a description of an offender, the first characteristic they ask for is his sex, followed by his race. Once they also get his height, weight, hair and eye color, identifying marks, clothing, etc., they give the description to officers and to the media for dissemination to the public. The media then typically censor the description, in order to render it worthless, so as to aid and abet the criminal, in avoiding arrest.

In the case in question, the N&O provides the following “description”:

The man had short black hair and was missing his two front teeth, according to police. He was wearing a brown jacket with a diamond pattern woven in it and blue jeans.

The only reader comment so far reads thusly:

“Eye witness description is lacking fundamentals, was this person, white, yellow, red, or black?? Otherwise any hockey player minus the jacket fits the description.”

[Durham police want help solving a theft, From Staff Reports, News & Observer, Published: Wed, Jan. 14, 2009 12:58PM; Modified Wed, Jan. 14, 2009 01:02PM.]

Every week, I either stumble upon, or readers e-mail me stories about often horrific crimes with “raceless” victims and/or perpetrators.

Since we are talking about at-large criminals, in every such case, the newspaper in question is, rather than helping the public, endangering it, while at the same time causing generalized paranoia, since people know that a criminal is on the loose, but have no way of identifying him and protecting themselves from him. With violent criminals, by deliberately forestalling the arrest of the offender, this criminal practice can cause additional people to be assaulted, raped, and murdered, who otherwise would never have encountered the assailant, because he would have already been caught. Such media obstruction of justice also endangers innocents who, due to willfully misleading descriptions may be misidentified as suspects or caught in the middle of an attempted wrongful arrest, and harmed or even killed. (Some subversive newspaper editors and TV news producers at times beat the censorship, by adding photographs of suspects.)

As James Fulford recounted in “Hate Crimes, Real Crimes, and Relevance,” the New York Times instituted its policy of protecting black criminals way back in 1946! Even then, the Times put loyalty to black criminals over loyalty to the law.

And in 1964, a Times reporter was forced to resign for writing the truth about a racist black Harlem gang, the Blood Brothers, which was “recruiting and training forces planning to kill whites.” When race riots then broke out in Harlem, the Times dutifully blamed the messenger, rather than the racist black gang or racist black rioters.

The reason for the loyalty to black (and increasingly, Hispanic) criminals is that journalism is dominated by white leftists and black and Hispanic racists who are joined in a war on American society. They see “minority” criminals variously as allies, pawns, and clients. To such alleged journalists’ devilish mind-set, the criminals are the “good guys,” and the police—at least the ones who haven’t themselves gone over to the dark side—all belong in jail:

Just as every cop is a criminal,

And all the sinners saints,

As heads is tails,
Just call me Lucifer,
‘Cause I’m in need of some restraint.

[Sympathy for the Devil, by Mick Jagger and Keith Richards, The Rolling Stones.]

As Fulford once observed,

But media blackouts on race and crime produce what Marxists call a “false consciousness”.  People don’t know the facts about crime. And they can’t decide on public policy because they don’t have those facts.

[Race, Relevance and the Public’s Right to Know, by James Fulford, VDARE, August 9, 2002.]

Which, of course, is the point. As far as the MSM and their education and entertainment comrades are concerned, the public isn’t supposed to make informed decisions on public policy. And since they have variously suppressed the facts about race and crime, or in the case of Hollywood, turned those facts upside down, the alliance is then positioned to charge anyone complaining about minority crime with being guilty of trafficking in “racist stereotypes,” or as Joe Guzzardi put it, “hate facts.”

And as Fulford once pointed out, facts about criminals’ race or ethnicity are not only important to public safety, but interesting!

But “journalists” who always shout about “the public’s right to know” when they seek to sabotage a political enemy, have contempt for that same public, when it wants to know something. Media censors then declare that information off-limits, “irrelevant,” and change the subject to yet more moron fodder about entertainment delinquents. And newspaper persons wonder why, despite a population explosion, their industry has lost credibility with the public, and been in a years-long death spiral?

Via the National Center for Policy Analysis, there’s a Migration Policy Institute study, and a WSJ story that say that illegals are staying, despite the recession:

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS STAY IN U.S. DESPITE RECESSION
Illegal immigration to the United States may be slowing, but undocumented migrants who are already here aren’t likely to return home en masse barring a more severe economic downturn, according to a study [PDF] by the Migration Policy Institute in Washington.

Other findings:

• The recession hasn’t limited legal immigration, because most of those people come to the United States on family-based visas that take years to secure.
• Since last year, the growth of the foreign-born population in the United States began slowing when the recession started at the end of 2007.
• Net illegal immigration is dropping to near zero, according to the institute and other groups.

The researchers conclude that it is premature to expect a wave of returnees to home countries, even in Latin America. They looked at current and historical data, finding “there is no definitive trend so far that can be tied in a significant way to the U.S. economic conditions.”

Instead, they found that even in the toughest economic times, illegal immigrants are likely to search for lower-paying work, then move within the United States to find other work, before considering a return home. Economic conditions in their native countries compared with those inside the United States also weigh more heavily in decisions about whether to return, the study’s lead author, Dimitrios Papademetriou, said.

Source: Cam Simpson, “Illegal Immigrants Stay in U.S. Despite Recession,” Wall Street Journal, January 14, 2008.

Actually, the WSJ has Papademetriou’s first name wrong, it’s Demetrios.  [Send him mail] Papademetriou is an immigration enthusiast, see here for Joe Guzzardi on his testimony on the Temporary Worker Bill, and the Wall Street Journal is worse. But if what they’re saying is true, it just means that we need more enforcement and better border security.

Is there a Yiddish word for a resurgence of energy after the Sabbath? The phenomenon appears to have energized our new friend The Kvetcher (DK):

VDARE has posted three separate articles, the first reviewing my original article and the subsequent ones responding to comments on my post. The dialogue on my original post itself has not gone as well as it did at first, but it was quite instructive. More on that later.

It seems to me that VDARE wants to discuss the immigration issue with the Jewish community specifically because it is disproportionately Jews, both overtly Jewish, and other ecumenical but still heavily Jewish organizations and media outlets that preempt a fair and comprehensive hearing on these matters. ……in the U.S., Jews and Jewish groups remain an obstacle to change, and are often shrill and reactive to concerned citizens agitating for more restrictive immigration policies and for existing policies to be effectively enforced.[VDARE.com emphasis.]

When Jews lead or contribute to a hostile environment that prevents a fair and comprehensive discussion about the exorbitant costs and severe downsides of current mass immigration levels, this is not conducive to responsible policy evaluation. I know all too well how social-liberal and far-Left Jews will scream nasty names at you for publicly questioning any aspect of immigration levels and populations, no matter how legitimate and pressing your concerns.

Firstly, we need to frame the question properly to our co-religionists.

I would ask the question like this: Is this a good time for mass immigration?The answer is an unequivocal “no.” We are in a period of massive unemployment. Seeking a greater labor supply at this time is absolutely absurd, and cruel to our working-class countrymen. We already suffer from an acute and increasing labor surplus. And it is probably only going to get worse, perhaps much worse….

Maddeningly, there are Jews and Jewish groups who actually claim on our communal behalf that illegal immigration somehow parallels are own legal immigrant past.

Even in very best possible interpretation of continuing to allow mass illegal immigration, or even legal immigration, Jews gain nothing. Today, that’s the most positive thing you could possibly argue…

What do Jews really mean when we tout the supposed greatness of ever-greater ethnic diversity?

What it really means is, “We’re still resentful and fearful of even the faintest whiff of nationalism emanating from whites because we have post-traumatic Holocaust syndrome.”

What we also really mean is, “We think increased diversity will make Jews safer.”…

So. Do you want what is happening TODAY in Europe to increasingly happen here as well because of bitterness about the past? Do you want to risk losing the southwest to a different nation and culture? Should we ignore the high-risk behavior that comes from tolerating an illegal population not personally invested in the country they reside?

If we Jews want to stop Muslim immigration, we are going to have to cut a deal with those who want to change immigration levels generally. (Vdare.com emphasis) We have to seek and set policy according to realpolitik, not irrational fears fronted by fanciful, universalistic ideals we ourselves helped construct in large part to effectively advocate for our particularist, ethnocentric concerns…

… there is a small fringe of anti-immigration activists who are concurrently infuriated at the Jews, and the liberal Jewish community consistently points to their rage as proof that the anti-immigration foes of today are the same people who were once specifically against Jewish immigration, hence justification for their continued pro-immigration policies.

It’s cutting off your long nose to spite your face.

It cannot be denied that a great many VDARE.com readers think the Jewish community is the main obstacle to rational immigration reform. That is an important reason why we cannot afford an open comment thread. It would just get too violent.

There are times when the clarity of Jewish thinking is just breathtaking. Larry Auster is an on-going example. The Neoconservatives were so welcome on the Right because their anti-Sovietism was so articulate.

But looking at the obdurate hostility of the comment thread to this and other Kvetcher postings makes me worry for DK. Time for a retreat to the Connecticut Berkshires?

Louis Bayard [email him] attacks nineteenth century philosopher Herbert Spencer in the liberal Washington Post, equating Spencer’s Social Darwinism with racism, and accusing him of uttering “paeans to the Aryan race ” with a “quasi-scientific panache.” Damon W. Root [email him] defends Spencer in the libertarian journal Reason, saying, (correctly) that Spencer uttered no such paeans.

Both men are missing the point–Spencer’s The Man Versus The State, which you can read online, was written in 1884, in a Britain where virtually everybody was white. Thus, his meditations on welfare policy have no racial component, because the question simply didn’t arise. If he had lived in multi-racial society with its differential  rates of crime and welfare use, I assume he would have said something.