You can't say that
Undercover Black Man (the obese David Mills - I know "obese" is a completely unfair personal characterization, but given how he operates, I'm taking the liberty) got Lawrence Auster "expelled" from FrontPage magazine by editor David Horowitz. His crime was writing The Truth of Interracial Rape in the United States. (Mills's wrote on this for The Huffington Post which must have given it wide blogosphere exposure.)
Apparently Mills (and Horowitz) object to statements from Auster's article like the following, which Auster got from U.S. Department of Justice statistics (meaning, presumably, that the numbers are unimpeachable):
In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man.So far as I've read at any of the above links, no one has either a) refuted these numbers, b) explained why they're misleading or should not be used, or c) explained why these words should not be written for publication (other than "I don't like that therefore you can't say that"). Since the Duke "rape" case was on the front page of the New York Times about 500 times over the past year, and the story's alleged newsworthiness hung on one alleged case of interracial rape (by whites of course), the relevance of Auster's article is apparent.
What this means is that every day in the United States, over one hundred white women are raped or sexually assaulted by a black man.
I'll take the numbers as given. Is there any other reason why they shouldn't be written, or that Auster is mistaken? Are we worried about hurt feelings here? That they play into the hands of real racists? (Which they apparently have.)
David Mills, as is obvious from his blog's title, identifies very strongly as a black man, and is quick to take offense at perceived slights to his race. Yet, when a white man writes about very real damage done to members of his own people, it's somehow beyond the pale, and not to be discussed. As Auster himself would put it, this is an example of the "anti-white double standard". Only blacks (or other minorities) are allowed to complain about real or perceived wrongs. Only blacks are allowed to have racial consciousness - in fact, if they don't, they're not even really black, according to some, possibly the majority, of blacks (and white liberals as well). Whites are only allowed to express guilt.
What about the idea that "real racists" make use of actual Department of Justice statistics? Should the government just stop collecting them? "Real racists" now use the internet, so perhaps we should just ban that too.
Horowitz's role in this, so far as one can see from Auster's account of it, appears mealy-mouthed at best, cowardly at worst. I always thought Horowitz admirable for his willingness to journey into the beast's lair and poke it in the eye; these days, he seems more intent on making conservatism look "respectable", in other words, getting liberals to like us, a fool's errand.
Mills is despicable, but he's really no worse than, say, a litigator, who after all is only taking advantage of the system. The "system" in this case is the ridiculous and predictable outrage when anyone dares to say anything about blacks that isn't either praiseworthy or an excuse for black social pathology.
posted by Dennis Mangan @ 11:12 AM
26 comments
26 Comments:
I agree that the challenge does not seem to be with the data, but rather what it tells us versus what is obscured. My personal expertise is predominantly in fending off the advances of white females, from an early age until now, not because I find them unattractive, but rather because of the ruckus nearly any association kicks up in white men and black women. While I wait for those blogs, I do have a question of the dynamics of poor men and the crime, as well as the socio-economic hierarchy influences that have so few white men raping black women. Clearly white men they have their own ‘jungle’ fever, as I have observed. Could it be that white men go to black prostitutes, whereas poor black men, burdened by victim attitudes, commit rape? I, for one, am not afraid of an honest discussion, but I do question, from reading a bit of Mr. Auster, if his mind is already made up.
The closest thing to a challenge to the data was Undercover Fat Man saying that Auster ignores the much greater incidence of intra-racial rapes. But of course that wasn't his point. Auster's point was that American society (and not just the 'liberal' media) has a script these days. Whites (esp. males) bad, every one else, but especially black men, good.
This is drummed into our kids, drummed into us. The consequences have been startling. As Mangan says, even the slightest hint by whites, esp. men, that we should protect our own, is regarded as shocking, a taboo of the first order. So, for example, it is suggested that we, as the descendents of the people who founded and pretty much settled the country have no right to defend that country, to take control of the demographic development of that country. We must give in, turn over our patrimony to the Chinese, the 'Latinos', whomever. I see the twenty something white kids of today, demoralized , tattoo covered grungies or worse, whiggers. If we don't want to be annialiated as a people, we have to wake up.
As to the matter at hand, I think Auster screwed himself. A few words responding to Mills, challenging him to challenge the data, explaining why this issue is important, would have put the Fat Man in his place
What seems interesting is that while whites rape less than blacks
(about ten times if you adjust according to population), they essentially don't rape black women.
Why is that? Whites do rape, although a lot less, but why not black women? Are black women simply not attractive to white men?
(at least I'm not sexually attracted to them at all).
A profile in courage called "anonymous" wrote: "... (at least I'm not sexually attracted to them at all)."
I bet black women are crying themselves to sleep over that... forever deprived of the deep reach of your "hammer of Thor"...
Anyways, Mangan wrote that my HuffPo piece on Thursday "must have given it wide blogosphere exposure." Ironically enough, that's not true. My few contributions to the Huffington Post thus far don't get prominent display. And my entry had already floated away like a popsicle stick in a rain-soaked gutter by the time Mr. Horowitz traded nasty emails with Mr. Auster. Nobody was seizing upon my trenchant critique.
Horowitz's big mistake, if you want to look at it tactically, was in writing emails to a guy who's famous for spraying friendly fire at fellow conservatives... who's famous for taking any slight as a grievous personal insult... and who's been known to post the contents of private emails verbatim on his blog, to convince his amen choir of how very right he is, and how very wrong and dishonorable his instant enemies are.
It's Auster, with his ego wounded, who spun this thing into an Internet funnel cloud with the post last night on his expulsion from FrontPage.
And if you read that email exchange carefully, you'll see that Horowitz has argued with Auster over Auster's "racial attitudes" since before either of them ever heard of Undercover Black Man. Horowitz didn't need me to point out the stench of bigotry in Auster's past writings on race.
Undercover: I'd like to see you address points a, b, and c above. I personally don't care whether and over what Horowitz and Auster came to blows, what I'd like to know is why it's racist to publish DOJ statistics on black crime, which is what, I gather, you think.
Obviously you haven't read what I wrote at the Huffington Post. I don't say it's racist per se to present facts about the disproportion of black crime.
I say Auster can't be presumed to be offering those facts in good faith because of the history of anti-black animus in his writing. Like when he wrote: "blacks are in fact less endowed with the qualities that make civilization possible," and "They seem to have much less interest in knowledge or beauty for its own sake."
La Griffe Du Lion has a new piece out that has some bearing on this: Why most serial killers are white.
It points out that 22% of serial killers are black, which is close to twice their actual percentage of the population, but since they generally commit violence at a rate seven times that of whites, there is still an anomaly.
Don't serial killers generally have higher than average IQs?
You know, Undercover Black Man, instead of insults I would like to know why white men rape white women, but not black. This figure really surprises me. While I'm mot into black women, I know some white men who are. Explanations are welcome.
Anon 1800: It is only a thought, but white men have limited access, socio-economically, to black women, except through unreported prostitution, of which they definitely avail themselves at high risk. Black men and white women share attraction with many less of these barriers, including the willingness to report the crime. Like I said before, it isn't the data, but rather the knee-jerk conclusions.
Jim: I agree with you about limited access re: white men/black women, and that surely explains much or most of the data. As for prostitution, maybe black women are disproportionately represented among the ranks. However, the "knee-jerk conclusions" escapes me; the only conclusion I get is that black men are far more likely to commit rape than white men; since white women are 7 times greater in the population, they are almost necessarily the biggest victims.
I still think most people here are missing on of Auster's cardinal points: the media uses various dubious cases of white-on-black rape (Tawana Brawley, Krystal Gail Magnum) to portray whites, esp. middle class white mails, as demons who exploit their 'white skin privilege'. Because these cases are so few, the narrative has to be repeated by liberals in the fanatasy world of television. Thus the infamous ethnic balance of criminals in 'Law and Order'. This phenomenon is not new: here is a description of the LA Law pilot episode of 1986.
Shortly thereafter, partner Michael Kuzak reluctantly takes on the defense of Justin Pregerson, a wealthy and spoiled young man accused, along with two friends, of raping a woman dying from leukemia.
Now, I was in college at the time, and I remember the 'spoiled young man' (attending a fictious U.) and his victim. I am 99% sure that not only was she a leukemia patient, she was Black! I mean, 1980s LA, what are the odds that a white college kid is going to rape a Black leukemia victim. But that is what has been foisted on us, day in, day out, for the last 21 years. The complete and total opposite of the sociological reality.
And yeah, I am posting anonymously. I am not financially secure enough (yet) to be able to attract attention from the PC police.
males, vice mails
And I this idea of access strikes me as off-base. I hate to sound like a feminist, but rape is not only a sexual crime, but a crime of violence and control. That is what the experts tell us about prison rape, and that applies in some degree to 'street' rape also. Rape becomes a political act (or sub-political), as I believe Eldridge Cleaver taught us.
James says:
Anon 1800: It is only a thought, but white men have limited access, socio-economically, to black women, except through unreported prostitution, of which they definitely avail themselves at high risk. Black men and white women share attraction with many less of these barriers, including the willingness to report the crime. Like I said before, it isn't the data, but rather the knee-jerk conclusions.
Actually, that is just not true. Black females have better education than black males, on average, and are more employed in office situations, especially government jobs.
Under those circumstances, they are more in contact with white males than black males are in contact with white females.
Secondly, all males seek out females.
What I am offering is that rape, whether for sex or control, requires a degree of opportunity, access and proximity that is simply less afforded white men by black women, than the reverse. This is unrelated to level education, but perhaps a cultural holdover from slavery, when white men raped black women indiscriminately. Alternately, white women labor under a myth of black male prowess, stoked largely by white men, that ironically makes them more attracted to black males and vulnerable to rape.
Dennis, Mr. Auster seems to present the rape data as clear evidence of black inferiority. Perhaps I am putting words into his mouth, but there is a reason David Duke latches onto Auster's words, despite his 'Jewishness', that backs my feelings.
James throws us another unsubstantiated assertion:
This is unrelated to level education, but perhaps a cultural holdover from slavery, when white men raped black women indiscriminately.
Do you have any evidence for that claim?
I am pretty sure that my ancestors never came into contact with black women and they were not in the business of raping women, given that a large number of them were married for 50 years.
UBM,
I'm more interested in which hurdles someone who adduced these facts of inter-racial victimization would have to jump through in order to prove his good faith. From surveying the state of public discussion of race, it seems to me that the only sort of person who could prove his good faith to you and other guardians of racial goodthink is someone who would never bring this sort of fact up in the first place, precisely because he already accepts the anti(white) racist narrative to which this sort of information is inconvenient. So I suspect you're being disingenuous.
Similarly, you criticize Auster for not discussing the issue of intraracial rape, but rape per se was not his subject. Black-on-white rape, and the (lack of) social significance assigned to it, particularly in comparison to the empirically almost non-existent phenomenon of white-on-black rape, was. For that, you have no answer. You can't or won't really defend the anti-white double standard without saying outright that, in the words of Ms. Sontag, the white race is a cancer, so you change the subject to Mr. Auster. Now it is undeniable that by conventional standards, Mr. Auster is a racist. Unfortunately, the conventional standard is so broad that it encompasses any white person who has the gall not to accept blame for, well, everything, and especially those with the temerity to write or say anything that illustrates that race relations aren't so, well, black-and-white.
I went to the Justice Department statistics, but couldn't seem to find the race victim versus race attacker statistics. Either one or the other, but not both.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cvus/rape_sexual_assault.htm
Perhaps the source can be identified.
"Dennis, Mr. Auster seems to present the rape data as clear evidence of black inferiority. Perhaps I am putting words into his mouth, but there is a reason David Duke latches onto Auster's words, despite his 'Jewishness', that backs my feelings."
If the data does not represent black inferiority, then what does it represent? Black ability as rapists? It is also a good move to smear Auster by associating him with David Duke. That is the standard liberal technique used when there is really nothing that disputes the data. I have read plenty of how Auster is racist, insensitive, mean-spirited, but nobody has yet said how and why he is wrong (because he isn't). All that is left is obfuscation and name calling. All Undercover Black Man is able to do is insult some guy's penis size and the fact he doesn't find black women especially attractive(many black men don't seem to either, especially black rapists). If the data is wrong about black rape, please let us know (the same goes for other rates/types of black crime). But what liberals and blacks are really whining about is that Auster had the nerve to write about part of the black crime wave that is washing over this nation and blames the real culprits, blacks themselves, instead of poverty, racism, lack of or poor education, or any of the other standard excuses that have been used for years.
Look at Table 42 of this document:
The 2005 data.
Note, the data actually results from a survey of around 135,000 people selected randomly across the US who answered a survey, and if they said yes to questions about being a victim, were then asked further questions.
Thus, when they say there were fewer than 10 white on black rapes or sexual assaults, they are saying that fewer than 10 black females said they were raped or sexually assaulted by a white male.
Perhaps it is a case of white male privilege operating again.
James says:
Alternately, white women labor under a myth of black male prowess, stoked largely by white men, that ironically makes them more attracted to black males and vulnerable to rape.
Ahhhh, so it is all the fault of those evil white males.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cvusst.htm
Some of Auster's readers have corrected/amplified his interpretation of the data. These data are from crime surveys. It turns out that for the last three years, out of about 13500 black women that have been interviewed over the last three years, there have been zero cases where they have been reported being raped by a white man.
It also has to be said, in fairness, that last year seems to have had an atypically high number of black on white rapes, at something over 30% of total rapes of white women. The typical percentage is in the middle teens. However, glancing at the data there seems to be some strange things going on, such as a drastic drop in reported (to surveyers) rape/sexual assault. Perhaps this is due to the vagueness of the category
My understanding of it: to survive the ice ages, Europeans and NorthEast Asians had to work more cooperatively and with more patience than those humans who remained in the tropics. So they evolved towards less aggression impulsiveness and testosterone, more cooperative and patient "femininity". Ergo, blacks are more masculine (men who have, on average, higher testosterone and other biomarkers of masculinity (muscularity, sports abilities, etc) and who are also generally more raping-prone, and women who are, on average, more masculine too, which means not attractive
targets for rape both because they will kick your ass but also because they are not as attractive (feminine) as white or North East Asian women). White people, on the other hand, are more feminine - less likely to rape, more attractive targets for rape. East Asians are even more feminine (even lower average testosterone levels), and, if they constituted say 15% of the US population, would probably be on the other side of white folks on both the raped/raping sides of the equasions.
Also, in the (liberaral big) city that I live in, many many white women go out with black guys. I see it in bars, I see it on the street, I see it in many women I’ve had as housemates, I’ve heard about it from friends and women I’ve dated. If a black guy has a degree and a job, it’s like he’s a 6’1” successful lawyer. I see it as often a phase white women go through - they like the thrill of it, the sexual excitement of it, it helps them to feel moral and doing their part to end racism. Many of them, after some time, though, seem to decide that black guys play too rough and loose. So a number of friends have me.
How does this work?
"I say Auster can't be presumed to be offering those facts in good faith because of the history of anti-black animus in his writing"
What is faith in a fact? Either it IS a fact, and verifyable, or it ISNT a fact. Period. You personally can have faith in the fact(and by extension, the writer) or you can verify it. That is a personal choice you make as a reader. How do you transfer that responsibility to the writer?
To be fair, Since the data is drawn from a survey, not a compilation of statistics, it does leave one to be sceptical of the conclusions drawn ( or at least it should to most readers on this site). But the overall conclusions of the article are refering, at least as I read it, to media bias against whites, not necessarily White bias against blacks. That may be implied, but wouldnt that implication be better left to the reader to make for himself?
Everything else aside for a moment: what REALLY amazes me is that Horowitz would oust a serious writer like Auster yet keeps a creep like David Yeagley who has no numbers and figures to offer to back his views that might be construed as "racist", just hateful bile, which IS racist.
And please, if you follow the link I provided, read carefully what I said in the opening remarks. When I am denouncing Yeagley's views in connection with the Duke "rape" case, I am NOT forgetting the fact that this was another incident of anti-White racism by the authorities, but exposing the utter callousness of a creep who finds threatening to penetrate a woman (ANY women, Black, White, stripper, hooker, nun, homemaker) with a broom handle a "stimulating situation". Whether those threats really happened is, in this context, immaterial. He took it for granted that they did when he said it.
Why would Horowitz do it? Any ideas? I am not trying to be provocative, just seriously asking.
Dear Readers and Writers in 2008, I was raped by a white man, and yes I am a black female. This man had it all planned. He put a drug in my drink, while I was in his mother's house. While most women have illegal drugs in their system or intoxicated to the legal limit. I was not. While I live in a white rural town, Anna Texas the police has continue to prosecute victim and not the accuser. Yes white men have fantasies, this man also come from a physical abusive dad, his mother took forty years of physical abuse. Within the next 5 days of the rape, the rapist act as if nothing had happen. He is a sick man. And his mother is in denial.
Evil has not face or color, its the soul and spirit of the man, which commits these types of crimes.
Post a Comment
<< Home