2,330 words

America’s Ten Most Dangerous Cities with a Population Over 25,000: Can You Guess What They All Have in Common?

Just as Rodney King was beaten over the head with Los Angeles Police Department batons — but far more relentlessly and viciously than King Rodney was, because he only got it for about five minutes — we’ve been assailed daily for decades with a never-ending guilt trip about how it’s hard to be black in the US of A and how the White Man, as if there’s only one of him, is constantly engaged in a sadistic conspiracy with himself to prevent blacks from rising to the glorious potential that they display when left to their own devices in nations such as Burundi, Somalia, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Chad.

I had such high hopes for Chad, too. He seemed like a nice boy. Regarding the two countries with “Republic” in their names, it only goes to show that Republicans are racist against blacks.

But despite all we hear about how difficult it is to be black in America, we never hear about how difficult it is to be around blacks in America, even if you’re black. Fact is, it’s more difficult for blacks to be around other blacks than it is for them to be around non-blacks anywhere in the world, as evidenced by the sorry saga of Chad and all other majority-black countries like him.

Although they may have problems with basic arithmetic, blacks have absolutely no problem committing crime; just do the math, and you’ll see.

On Saturday, as if it was news rather than a gaggle of facts based on a report that was released all the way back in January, the Daily Mail published an article with the headline “REVEALED: The ten most dangerous cities in the US ranked — and the worst will surprise you.”

When we typically see these “Most Dangerous Cities” listicles, they’re usually about big, dirty, honest-to-God cities in the sense that they typically have at least one professional sports team that you’ve heard of, and in recent years it has seemed as if Detroit and St. Louis are usually vying against one another for the top spot. The only thing surprising about the Daily Mail’s list is that they lowered the bar to include all “cities” with a population of 25,000 or more. When defining “most dangerous,” the criterion was the per-capita likelihood of being victimized by violent crime, with “violent” confined to “homicide, rape, armed robbery and aggravated assault,” which sort of implies that there’s no such thing as peaceful rape and that it’s not violent to be punched in the nose, even if the authorities didn’t find it to be particularly aggravating.

The stats were taken from an outfit called SecurityGauge, which compiled reports from “18,000 law enforcement agencies in cities and towns across the US with at least 25,000 residents.” The “agencies” in question range from local police forces all the way up to the mighty FBI, about which I will never whisper a negative word because someone told me they monitor this website. One must assume that these law enforcement agencies were being honest and not suppressing actual crime statistics (so as not to deter investors) or artificially inflating them (so they could raise taxes and hire their lazy cousins as cops).

Three quick takeaways:

• None of the Top Ten had a Black Quotient of under 40%, and only one had more whites than blacks.


• Seven are in the South, and three are in the Midwest. The Northeast and West Coast aren’t reppin’ violent crime as hard as I’d suspected they might.


• A violent city’s Hispanic quotient will only be noted if it’s over 10%. The spics surprisingly had little to do with violent-crime rates, according to these stats. What complicates matters is that these brownish greaseballs are often, but not always, counted as white and Hispanic, so at this point in time, American law enforcement agencies have a notoriously difficult time in counting beaners.

Mind you, the per-capita risks of being victimized by violent crime cited here are coming out radically different compared to other data I’ve seen on some of the same cities, so maybe it depends on the year, the reporting agency, or how they’re defining “violent” crime. I’m merely relaying the info as provided by SecurityGauge, so don’t burn me at the stake, kemosabe.

Most of the labor I expended in assembling this handy rundown involved fetching the city’s population info and its relative racial quotients. Compiling all the stats for this felt like composing the elaborate setup on a joke for which everyone already knows the punchline, but I did it both for the sake of the truth and in the interest of dark humor — literally “dark” humor.

Without further ado, here are the Top Ten most dangerous American cities with a population of over 25,000:

1. Bessemer, Alabama
2020 population: 26,019
Black: 69.59%
White: 18.74%
Chance of being victimized by a violent crime: 1 in 30

2. Monroe, Louisiana 
2020 population: 47,702
Black: 63.24%
White: 30.18%
Chance of being victimized by a violent crime: 1 in 38

3. Saginaw, Michigan
2020 population: 190,124
Black: 43.38%
White: 34.45%
Hispanic: 15.81%
Chance of being victimized by a violent crime: 1 in 40

4. Memphis, Tennessee
2020 population: 633,104
Black: 61.2%
White: 27.1%
Chance of being victimized by a violent crime: 1 in 40

5. Detroit, Michigan
2020 population: 639,111
Black: 77.9%
White: 12.9%
Chance of being victimized by a violent crime: 1 in 43

6. Birmingham, Alabama 
2020 population: 196,010
Black: 68.12%
White: 22.81%
Chance of being victimized by a violent crime: 1 in 49

7. Pine Bluff, Arkansas
2019 population: 41,474
Black: 76.9%
White: 18.3%
Chance of being victimized by a violent crime: 1 in 49

8. Little Rock, Arkansas
2022 population: 204,405
Black: 40.1%
White: 42.1%
Hispanic: 10.1%
Chance of being victimized by a violent crime: 1 in 49

9. Alexandria, Louisiana
2020 population: 47,723
Black: 54.65%
White: 36.53%
Chance of being victimized by a violent crime: 1 in 58

10. Cleveland, Ohio
2020 population: 372,624
Black: 47.5%
White: 32.1%
Hispanic: 13.1%
Chance of being victimized by a violent crime: 1 in 58

Additional nuggets of interest about these rankings:

• For the previous two years, Monroe, Louisiana had occupied the top spot on SecurityGauge’s list, only to be nudged down into second place by Bessemer, the dying Alabama steel town that’s only 15 miles from Birmingham — which also made the cut.


• Just as Bessemer is geographically close to Birmingham, the Arkansas cities of Little Rock and Pine Bluff are a mere 40 miles from one another. Little Rock is the only city in the Top Ten to have more white residents than blacks, and I may ask the editor of this website, or any willing anonymous benefactor, if they could finance a road trip for me to Little Rock so I can ask the white people what the hell is going on there. An August article from Arkansas Online says that a separate analysis ranked Pine Bluff as America’s “least safe of 660 communities with 30,000 to 100,000 residents” and that its “cost of crime per resident was $9,071,” which is astounding when one ponders that its per-capita income is a mere $19,710.


• An August poll of Memphis residents found that 46% of respondents say they’d been violently victimized in the past year, and I believe it.


• Saginaw, Michigan is a mere 102 miles from Detroit. It formed the backdrop of a beautifully winsome 1964 song by country legend Lefty Frizzell, recorded at a time when I’m sure that Saginaw was much nicer than it is now.

Okay, fine, great, you get my point, it’s dangerous to live in cities that are bursting at the seams with The Blacks.

But what about cities and towns with a population under 25,000? This article, updated in late July 0f this year, cites statistics from a 2021 report by Statewise. To make the grade for my purposes, towns all had to have had a per-capita victimization rate at least as bad as Cleveland’s, which ranked #10 on the list of cities with a population over 25,000.

Again, these stats are all from that single report, so I’d urge you not to kill, rape, rob, or get all aggravated and start assaulting me if they don’t jibe with stats that you’ve seen. This nation is already violent enough, and I doubt that anyone reading this is black, anyway, so we don’t want to skew these results.

According to my “Has to be at least as violent as Cleveland” criterion, only five small towns made the cut:

1. Sauk Village, Illinois
2021 population: 9,698
Black: 68.14%
White: 16.64%
Hispanic: 13.39%
Chance of being victimized by a violent crime: 1 in 18

2. Florida City, Florida
2021 population: 12,735
Black: 44.2%
White: 3.81%
Hispanic: 49.85%
Chance of being victimized by a violent crime: 1 in 38

3. Osceola, Arkansas
2021 population: 6,779
Black: 55.81%
White: 36.83%
Chance of being victimized by a violent crime: 1 in 39

4. Marksville, Louisiana
2021 population: 4,945
Black: 43.59%
White: 46.04%
Chance of being victimized by a violent crime: 1 in 45

5. Globe, Arizona
2021 population: 4,945
Black: 1.2%
White: 77.6%
Hispanic: 32.7%
Chance of being victimized by a violent crime: 1 in 55

Takeaways from the small-town rankings:

• On a per-capita basis, Sauk Village, Illinois is the most violent town in the United States.


• The Hispanics finally showed up in force and got ultraviolent in Florida City, Florida, a small dump on the east end of the only road that passes through Everglades National Park.


• In addition to Little Rock, I’ll have to extend my road trip to Marksville, Louisiana and all the way out to Globe, Arizona to see exactly what breed of white people we’re dealing with in these places.

Weird-Looking Korean Writer: “Preferring Biological Children Is Immoral”

Every picture I see of Leo Kim suggests to me that he smells like pickled radishes and dirty feet. Or, since “they” all look alike, maybe those are three different Leo Kims, and it’s a simple biological fact that all Koreans look as if they smell like pickled radishes and dirty feet.

And if he’s the same Leo Kim who writes music articles with titles such as “White electronic artists love pretending to be Asian” and “On Techno-Orientalism,” which laments “disquieting images of white faces heavily edited to appear more ‘Asian,’” as if anyone on Earth has ever really desired moon-shaped faces and slanted eyes, I have no qualms about making fun of him, since he clearly hates white people but also clearly ascribes to illogical pomo/postcolonial mumbo-jumbo which dictates it’s impossible for any non-white to hate a white person, even though race is a social construct and whites and non-whites don’t actually exist — although, you know, white racism is undeniably settled science.

Or maybe we’re dealing with a whole array of annoying Leo Kims. They all write alike to me, so how could I really tell?

Regardless, a certain “Leo Kim” holds the byline of an August 31 article in Wired called “Preferring Biological Children Is Immoral,” as if reality was something you could scientifically prove rather than effetely toss out as an unverifiable and unfalsifiable opinion.

Choice passages:

For most of Western history, it was a given that a parent would want their children to be their direct progeny. A child’s biological provenance was believed to ground the parent-child relationship in a hardwired, irrevocable bond. If anything, it was morally preferable that your child be directly related to you, since this was thought to provide a healthy foundation for growth and self-actualization. . . .

On the contrary, this biological desire reinforces norms that we are explicitly aiming to dismantle. It places undue emphasis on genetic similarity as a criterion for our ethical relations, running against our stated hopes to expand our nets of responsibility and care beyond the borders of nation, ethnicity, culture, and even species. . . .

Language around what is “natural” and “unnatural” should always be viewed with suspicion. . . .

Genetic provenance has long been used as a tool to construct and uphold white hegemony; think of the legacy of the “one drop rule” that erected whiteness around a logic of ancestral purity. The desire for biological ties, in many ways, can easily legitimize a racially inflected obsession with genetic history. . . .

Furthermore, we should be conscious of the ways institutions like slavery denied the legitimacy of certain kinds of biological relationships. . . .

I’m going to assume that the Leo Kim whose mind excreted this verbal defecation lives somewhere in the United States, where a majority-white populace allowed him, unwittingly and unwisely, to live — and perhaps even be born — here.

I’ll also assume that his ancestral lineage comes from South Korea, because from what I know about North Korea, they all live in cages and are forbidden from escaping.

South Korea’s population is currently around 51,775,721, give or take a few dozen epicanthic folds. An estimated 96% of these people are ethnic — i.e., genetic — Koreans. We can thus conclude, based on Leo Kim’s smelly sense of ethics, that 96% of Korean parents are immoral.

White Australian Schoolchildren Forced to Write Apology Letters to Aborigines

For anywhere from 40 to 60 millennia, Australia’s aborigines sat around eating grubs, swatting at flies, sodomizing dingoes, living aimlessly in Dreamtime, and failing to construct anything resembling a functional civilization. Their median IQ is 62 — which “corresponds to the mental age of an 11-year-old European”–and their brains are demonstrably smaller than those of Europeans.

But a few hundred years ago, the dregs of England were shipped to Australia as convict laborers, and with the help of a few white slave-drivers, they dragged Oz out of the Stone Age.

Now come reports that white Australian schoolchildren — who, if they’re 11 years old, can be assumed to have the mental age of 11-year-old Europeans — are being forced to write apologies to abos “for taking their land”:

The letters, written by primary school children, were put together on pieces of paper shaped in the form of a megaphone with words referencing the nation’s colonial past.

Sample apologies from these victims of mental child abuse:

We are sorry for everything that we have done.

We are sorry to Aboriginals. We took your land and we have now we feel sad of what we have done.

Aboriginal people should have many more rights and should be treated nicely they should also be a [sic] aboriginal voice to parliament [sic].

I would have no problem with any of this if, in the interest of equity, aboriginal children were made to write apologies for being drunk, useless, and violent, but that would assume that they are able to: 1) write and 2) apologize.

*  *  *

Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate at least $10/month or $120/year.

1. Donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Everyone else will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days. Naturally, we do not grant permission to other websites to repost paywall content before 30 days have passed.


2. Paywall member comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)


3. Paywall members have the option of editing their comments.


4. Paywall members get an Badge badge on their comments.


5. Paywall members can “like” comments.


6. Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)

To get full access to all content behind the paywall, please visit our redesigned Paywall page.