Perception Is Reality
Has the federal government been lying about crime this entire time?
Before we begin, we have a few administrative matters to discuss.
First, I haven’t gotten many responses to my call for questions to field a Q&A session, which makes me think I’m just not as interesting as I’d hoped, nor does anyone see me as having a unique insight into the big issues of our time. In consideration of the few who did drop questions, I’ll answer them directly, but it appears to be way too early in the game for mailbag sessions with your favorite secret agent.
Second, sorry for less frequent posting these days. Due to professional obligations, I’m having to back off Substack a bit. I know I’ve said in the past that I’d do shorter posts to fill in dead air, but I’m discovering this is easier said than done. It still takes time and the amount that I spend writing multiple short essays, when added up, probably isn’t much less than the time I spend writing a longer essay. Over the next few months, the frequency of posts will likely be what it’s been the last few weeks.
That said, here’s something to break the silence. It was originally supposed to be part of a longer essay, but it started running too long, so I’m detaching it to run as a standalone.
When It Comes To Crime, Trust Your Gut. Not The Government.
Has the federal government been lying about crime this entire time? The FBI released revised crime statistics that show that yes, crime has in fact gone up over the last few years, suggesting perception is much closer to reality than the official narrative:
Statistical analysis can be an imperfect science, so I looked around to see if there was a reasonable explanation for the disparity. I approach everything initially with a dose of skepticism to avoid confirmation bias, since getting it right is more important than being proven right. To find a possible explanation for the disparity, I turned to Jeff Asher, a data analyst who focuses on crime and someone I’ve quoted on more than one occasion here. Asher has become something of an unofficial front-man for the Regime’s crime narrative, but I also think he’s more of an honest broker than he isn’t.
Here’s his explanation for what’s going on:
The FBI publishes estimates each year. They’re estimates because not every agency reports data every year. Anybody suggesting the FBI’s figures are perfect is either naive about the way the data is collected and reported or doesn’t read my newsletter (or probably both). But the FBI’s figures, much like the BJS figures, paint a comprehensive picture of American crime trends over time even if the exact numbers can never be 100 percent correct.
The FBI’s 2021 crime estimates are the exception. The 2021 figures were not reliable when they were first published in 2022 and they are not reliable now.
Around 65 percent of the country was covered by a NIBRS agency when the switch was made in 2021. It’s why the FBI’s 2021 crime report came with very large error bars that were much maligned.
If you can’t following what he’s saying, in 2021, the federal government’s system of crime data collection changed in 2021 and participation rates by agencies was initially low, which makes the data unreliable. Fair enough.
He then says the revisions to the 2021 data don’t make it any more reliable than it was the first time:
Our assessment of whether crime is rising or falling really shouldn’t include the FBI’s 2021 estimates. People who — wrongly — argued for months about the FBI’s lower participation in 2022 and 2023 really shouldn’t be suddenly relying on 2021’s estimates as an accurate portrayal of crime nationally that year.
Again, fair point. He goes on to explain that revisions are perfectly normal and don’t indicate any deliberate dishonesty on the part of the government. I’m inclined to agree with him on this as well. Many on the Right are totally dismissive of the data, claiming it’s been completely cooked. I don’t totally buy this theory and Asher does provide a plausible explanation for why the data has changed and it’s not out of malice:
Second, yes, the FBI revised its 2022 figures when the 2023 figures were released. The FBI does this EVERY YEAR. Here’s the FBI in 2019 — see footnote 6 — noting that the 2018 figures were revised. Here’s the 2006 report — see footnote 3 — noting that the 2005 figures were revised. And here’s 1995’s report (see footnote 4 on page 58).
Calling these changes “stealth” simply displays one’s lack of awareness that revisions are frequently made to historical FBI estimates. The FBI doesn’t do press releases about the UCR’s methodology, it’s frustrating to those who deal regularly in crime data (at least it is to me!) but it doesn’t imply some malice or effort to hide the revisions.
I can understand why some don’t want to buy this explanation, but the fact is, these revisions are done rather openly, if not entirely transparently. The federal government, for all its dishonesty, isn’t trying to hide the fact that its numbers have been revised, a practice that’s been going on for decades. In fact, it’s somewhat reassuring to hear these numbers do get corrected.
Asher does acknowledge the revisions for 2022 and 2023 were unusually substantial, though he doesn’t think it alters the overall narrative:
Why were the FBI’s revisions in 2022 and 2023 so large? I don’t really know which is frustrating. I asked about it last year when the 2022 revisions were published but didn’t get any answers back. Large revisions without an explanation isn’t a great practice, but it also wasn’t overly concerning for me personally because it only serves to highlight how these crime estimates should always be taken with a grain of salt.
Do the 2022 and 2023 revisions majorly alter our understanding of national crime trends? In my opinion, not at all.
The 2021 estimate for violent crime right now is so bad that it’s actually outside of the 95 percent confidence interval that FBI and BJS put together when they were first released in 2022.
If our assessment of crime trends rightfully ignores 2021 then we can say that violent crime rose slightly in 2020 while murder rose at the fastest rate ever recorded that year. That was true in the 2020 release, it was true despite revisions in 2022, and it was true in 2023. Again, ignoring 2021, then we can say that the FBI’s 2023 estimates show a continued small decline in violent crime with a historically large decline in murder.
His argument seems to be: precise numbers don’t matter, trends do. Regardless of what the numbers say, unless it translates into a dramatic shift in trajectory, it doesn’t make a difference. Once more, I tend to agree with him on this. It’s not as contradictory as it sounds: since it’s individual law enforcement agencies reporting crime to a central federal database, it’s possible the data being reported is true, while also incomplete, and the level of data available is sufficient to establish trends.
The problem I see is that Asher seems to be trying to have it both ways: the data is unreliable, so don’t draw definitive conclusions from it… yet we can draw definitive conclusions from it, conclusions, the media and political class can use to craft well-defined narratives out of. They can even be used by journalists to “fact-check” presidential candidates! If Asher has a problem with people misinterpreting data or not relying enough on the data to form their opinion, he doesn’t seem to have a problem with when the people in power use it tell everyone else what’s going on. Looking on his Substack, I don’t see any admonishment on his part with respect to the media and the Democratic Party using the data and his analysis to tell Americans we live in an era of “historic lows” in crime.
Again, I can understand how the numbers can show trends without being absolutely precise, but then that still requires the data to be reliable on a certain level. I don’t think the data is completely fabricated and collecting crime statistics has always been challenging. It’s a question of how the data is being used. If Asher has issues with those punting the data because it doesn’t confirm their perceptions of what’s happening in real life, then he should also take issue with those in power using what he himself describes as unreliable data to tell stories with which they then try to influence or even control our lives. Ask yourself: what’s more reasonable? Punting the data because it’s unreliable? Or using unreliable data to craft narratives that end up becoming public policy?
Those in power are always trying to tell a story of what’s going on around us. They use that power to tell us when the data matters and when it doesn’t. The numbers show that Black men aren’t being hunted down by police or by White men, but then the data doesn’t matter because it runs counter to the story they try to tell about the country.
When it comes to crime, however, the unreliable data suddenly matters because it tells exactly the story they want to tell about the country. Remember: the Regime barely paid attention to crime in the first few years of the Biden administration until data emerged that allowed them to say crime was going down. People like Asher were instrumental in putting together the package the Regime could then deliver to the American people to reflect well on themselves.
I don’t want to question Asher’s integrity, but whether he realizes it or not, he’s part of that narrative-building effort. If he doesn’t want to be, he should be critical of those wielding power and influence, but I also sense his livelihood is based in large part off giving these very people something they can work with.
Taken in good faith, Asher’s overall message seems to be a lesson in how to use data. But this in no way tells us how we should feel about crime in America, or what the real problem even is. I’ve explained before and will continue to explain that disorder, along with the way state and society approach crime, is the real problem. We don’t need skyrocketing crime rates for America to be an anarchic country. When it comes to the numbers, while crime is much lower today than it was 20 to 30 years ago, it’s also remained more or less constant over the last 10 years, with numbers higher than most of the developed world. But crime, at the end of the day, isn’t a numbers problem; it’s a social problem. It’s just not something which can be thought through a statistical framework.
It’s almost like it’s a better bet to take the advice of prepper Fabian Ommar, someone who’s lived with high crime his entire life:
When it comes to crime, trust your gut.
Never trust the government.
Sounds like a plan. Good preppers never rely on the government, anyway.
“No One Knows How To Stop Them”
There are telltale signs the Regime is aware that disorder, if not crime rates, is becoming a serious problem. The Atlantic recently published an essay titled “Shoplifters Gone Wild,” declaring that at least when it comes to theft, perception is reality:
The essay is paywalled, so I haven’t read it and therefore unable to lift any quotes from it. Though its encouraging to see that the Regime can no longer hide what many of us have known as fact for years now, it’s still perturbing to see them push the lie that “nobody knows how to stop them.” Really?
President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador, who’s policies turned his country from one of the most violent in the world to one of the safest, had an all-time epic reply:
Not only does Bukele know, so do we all. It’s the same way we’ve dealt with delinquency throughout history: through violence. There’s no other way. Anything other than violence is side-stepping the problem. Anything other than violence is negotiation. Are we really negotiating with criminals here?
The wisdom of Starship Troopers rings true:
“Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms.”
Until cultural attitudes towards criminality changes or our society descends into complete anarchy, we’ll never muster the will to do what needs to be done, so I’m whistling past the graveyard at this point.
Political Justice Is No Justice At All
From the Lexington Herald-Leader:
The former University of Kentucky student who was banned from campus for a racist attack on a Black student has been sentenced to one year in jail.
Sophia Rosing, 23, physically assaulted and hurled racial slurs at a student desk clerk, Kylah Spring, who is Black, in November 2022. Video of Rosing’s attack and arrest went viral, made headlines around the world and put a spotlight on UK.
Rosing previously pleaded guilty to four counts of fourth-degree assault, one count of disorderly conduct and one count of public intoxication, according to her attorney, Fred Peters.
Fayette Circuit Judge Lucy VanMeter sentenced Rosing to 12 months in the Fayette County Detention Center, 100 hours of community service and a $25 fine.
Peters said he felt the sentence was “excessive.”
“What she said was awful,” Peters said. “She got into a scuffle with the clerk and bit people on the hand; I think she did not deserve a sentence of 12 months in prison for the very first offense her in life.”
She will be in protective custody at the Fayette County Detention Center due to the nature of her offenses, Peters said.
Sophia Rosing’s behavior was disgraceful. If that was my daughter, I’d be ashamed. But a year in prison? For a first-time offender? For that?
It’s hard not to see this as racialized political prosecution. The punishment overstates the severity of the crime, treating it as though it were some savage assault, which it objectively wasn’t. For the book to be thrown at her implies this was some exceptionally abhorrent act on her part. Being a college kid is no excuse, but we also know they’re on their own for the first time and think they’re invincible.
It’s why, up until recently, apparently, we didn’t lock up college kids for a year or more unless they committed a heinous crime, for which there would be no excuse for not throwing the book at them:
Would this Black woman receive a year in jail? Similar crime, after all:
I don’t know the outcome of this case - if anyone does, I’d love to know what it was - but based on what I’ve seen in the past in similar cases, I’d bet she didn’t get a year in jail.
I’m all for stiffer penalties. But not if they’re going to be issued based on political reasons.
Man-Hating Won’t Make You Safer
An X account named “brecht apologist” says:
Well, the last time a young, fit guy tried to intervene, this happened to him:
She has since locked her account, so I cannot post the remainder of the thread. I was able to read it all before she did and it’s a lot more man-hatred than anything else. Nothing about the anarcho-tyranny we live under that aids and abets crime, nothing about how our culture glorifies criminality. Of course, if she were serious about anything she said, she wouldn’t have used it as an opportunity indulge in man-hatred.
Look what she said about Daniel Penny last year:
By the way, what’s Penny’s fate? Jury selection is set to begin, but confidence he’ll be acquitted of his charges isn’t high. Penny’s defense team is trying to get jurors to see the case through his eyes, but as popular account “RAW EGG NATIONALIST” says:
Unfortunately, Daniel Penny's fate looks like a foregone conclusion. The trial is in New York.
But it also doesn't seem a great idea to ask the jury, “What would you do?” when we all know the answer. Not one of them would have done a thing.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: until women get more serious about personal safety, until they start demanding the government get busy with criminals instead of worrying about them being treated fairly, until men who intervene on behalf of the rest of us quit being prosecuted like Penny, the world will continue to get more dangerous.
There are many things that can be done to make life safer for women. Man-hating isn’t one of them.
Side-Stepping The Truth
What are your thoughts about what’s been discussed? Do you think the government’s crime data is reliable? Why or why not? Or do you, like me, think the data misses the point? What of the other topics?
Let’s discuss all that and more in the comments section.
Max Remington writes about armed conflict and prepping. Follow him on Twitter at @AgentMax90.
If you liked this post from We're Not At the End, But You Can See It From Here, why not share? If you’re a first-time visitor, please consider subscribing!
There is something that gets forgotten in discussions about crime, and that is there are many different forms of crime. What we are seeing in more recent years, especially in the ghetto, is crime that directly attacks order. The mafia back in the day were not the sanitized, glamorized fiction seen in the movies, but there is some truth to the notion that they kept order in their communities as well. The reason for that was that they didn’t want to ruin the places where their families lived, and because they wanted to leave their kids with an opportunity at a life they didn’t have. This was the case even in some of the older street gangs.
On the other hand, when people go loot a CVS or something, it has a destabilizing effect on a community, and promotes disorder. It attacks the institutions that make life healthy, convenient, and possible. It is, sometimes literally, shitting in your own nest. It makes it so that no one can realistically engage in any kind of business that brings wealth and stability to a community. In short, it ruins it, and is crime against order. It’s not that there is some sort of urban terrorism from that, because there is no real ideology. It stems from the culture of apathy and ignorance that has won over order and discipline in America.
People tend to focus on abortion or LGTBQ issues as being the “culture war,” but the real culture war was the founding culture of this nation, versus the one which emerged in the 1960s. In the new culture, discipline and work ethic was seen as a vice, comfort was king/queen, and the only thing that mattered was doing what made you happy. There are pockets of the old culture holding out, but it is steadily failing, because the new culture is so seductive and erosive. The mafia was the crime of the old culture, while looting a store is a crime of the new culture.
I don’t have any real conclusion to put on it. I don’t think this is by itself enough to collapse the nation, but it shows the rot that these things cannot be dealt with. It also shows that no one is really willing to deal with it, because the cost is too high. Bernard Goetz probably single handedly cut the rate of violent attacks on subways, but ruined his own life in the process. That is another sign of the new culture, the sympathy for the devil, the embrace of evil. The Joker is the hero, while Batman and what he represents is pushed aside. Being “mean” is the most grievous sin. A culture that promotes disorder cannot also act against disorder.
On an historical time scale, this would be compressed down to a blip, an age where an old order faded away and a new and healthier one arose. It’s the period in between the two which won’t be so great. It doesn’t have to be a civil war, maybe just a time and place where you can’t count on anything, including the lights staying on. That would take a commitment to order.
Atlantic article unpaywalled: https://www.removepaywall.com/search?url=https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/10/shoplifting-crime-surge/680234/
There's a discussion in that article about a career shoplifter and drug abuser in Kentucky who got 20 years in prison for his latest shoplifting of several hundred dollars worth of stuff.
While I agree about treating crime seriously, my thoughts go back to a Frontline interview I saw years ago with a career prison warden (also in KY ironically): "We need to decide who we're afraid of and who we're mad at. If we're afraid of you or of something you will likely do, you belong here [in his max sec prison]. But if we're just mad you or something you did in the past, we need a different system."
I have determined I largely agree with this. I don't know what that system looks like. Maybe its a form of labor camp. For violent crime, El Salvador's approach makes sense. For drug-fueled property crime, perhaps we should look to Singapore's strategies. Some countries allow low-priority convicts to work in the private sector. I don't know. But that prison warden is right: jails are horrendously expensive places that should largely be reserved for the unrepentantly violent.
One thing that article does not talk about is something you've mentioned before: the use of private stores (ala Costco or SamsClub) to deter shoplifting. WalMart has a huge problem with theft; I doubt Sams does. I think you're correct that we should expect to see more of this. A world that refuses to make store safety a public good will end up with it being a private good.