Nazaroo
New member
I'm posting this short "article" from Liveleak (originally from David Duke's website apparently)
for discussion in the light of the two recent news events.
(1) It is widely and credibly believed that the recent white racist shooter
was inspired by articles such as this.
Its therefore important that such articles be carefully analyzed.
(2) Some of the data presented need to be carefully examined and explained properly.
I will give an example of the slant created by mishandling of data below:
Now David Duke quickly moves on to his main point.
However, the slant becomes exaggerated in a significantly qualitative way
when he proceeds to completely ignore a large group
within the statistics he himself has selected, namely white rapists.
Less advanced readers (like our teenage racist shooter) may have
some difficulty understanding the fuller significance of the statistics,
and unfortunately, he is quickly whisked forward to a very oversimplified
picture painted by two highlighted facts.
I would even say that a sloppy or slow reader might even get the
impression from David Duke's language that there are no such thing
as white rapists, or that the main crime reflected in the stats was
that blacks were simply raping white girls, while white men were
too gentlemanly to commit rape, and too concerned about racial mixing
to touch black women.
However, a more realistic comparison reveals that:
(1) 44% of white girls were raped by white men, while only
33% of white girls were raped by black men.
Thus the facts relate that white women are 11% more likely to be
raped by a white man. Presumably 23% of white victims are
raped by other racial groups (i.e., Mexicans or Arabs) or even
other genders (other white women?).
That is not much comfort for rape victims, but it at least reflects
a more realistic picture of the danger.
In fact, the statistics seem to indicate that the moral corruption
among men could be about equal, allowing for the difference in
population size between white males and black males.
This may seem to be excusing white rapists, but we have to also mention
the possibility that black rapists might have less opportunities to
rape white women than white men do (having more access to white women).
The reasonable view overall then, seems to suggest that race itself
may not be a significant factor in rape, although gender quite clearly IS.
We can't pin rape as a crime on blacks or whites, but it does seem
that we can pin it to a significant degree on gender.
Whether that is cultural, or biological is a debate for a different thread.
I just want to focus here on the misuse of statistics to
create an emotional reaction upon those who might be susceptible to
manipulation by clever apologists for suspicious causes.
.
The result of David Duke's analysis is stunning and frightening (deliberately).
But what if we now add the corrective from the table as follows:
37,460 white women were raped by a black man(men): (33%).
49,100 white women were raped by a white man(men): (44%)
Apparently less than 10 black women were raped (!!!) per year, by anyone.
Thus the statistics look an awful lot like they are merely reflecting
the preferences of ALL rapists for white women.
This is surely remarkable, but on its face suggests that both
black and white rapists are "white supremists" when it comes to
selecting victims. They prefer white women.
Before we nod our heads and say
"77% of rapists (black or white) can't be wrong" in preferring white girls,
a little more research in the matter is likely to expose something
far more sinister than David Duke's theory that rape is a "black on white" crime.
It looks as if David Duke here hasn't considered the ramifications of
his own information:
Without even questioning the statistics on their face (although factors
could well be biasing both court outcomes and the statistics),
there is much to question here:
(1) What if rapes of black women are under-reported?
Before we suggest 'racism' as the sole or most significant cause,
remember that cops seem to be arresting as many white men for rape
as they are black men for rape. Thus if it is 'racism' it is a very
oddly selective form of racism.
(2) What if rapes of black women are less successfully prosecuted?
Again, other factors besides race may be at play, such as poverty issues,
available evidence, prejudice based on occupation (e.g., prostitutes etc.).
Lets just pause on this remarkable claim:
Suppose that (presumably) about 50% of rape allegations are successfully
filtered out before there is a trial and conviction.
The actual numbers for both black or white rapists might double if those
cases simply failed for lack of evidence or courage to come forward.
We might also question the accuracy of a 50% "sample" of real rapists,
reflecting accurate racial statistics.
But another question arises which is more hideous:
Granting that a certain percentage of cases may indeed be false allegations,
but nonetheless successfully pursued,
what is that relative likelihood of black false convictions to white false convictions?
Without knowing those statistics, its reasonable to at least suppose
that black men might be more likely to be convicted than white men,
for a variety of reasons, involving race and also other factors,
such as adequate defence, scapegoating, poverty issues etc.
Thus while David Duke appears hysterical about black on white rape,
I'm not quite convinced.
I'm thinking that yes, rape is a violent, horrific epidemic in America.
But I'm not so confident that this is a mostly racial crime,
when there appears to be a good case that its a gender crime,
a cultural crime, and a crime that is policed, judged, and defined in a way
that reflects and perpetuates racist attitudes.
We'd be far better off teaching and demanding that women have respect and protection,
than demanding that scapegoats be hunted down while fundamental social tragedies remain
unexamined.
for discussion in the light of the two recent news events.
(1) It is widely and credibly believed that the recent white racist shooter
was inspired by articles such as this.
Its therefore important that such articles be carefully analyzed.
(2) Some of the data presented need to be carefully examined and explained properly.
I will give an example of the slant created by mishandling of data below:
The Truth of Interracial Rape in the United States 37,460 rapes of White Women by black men in 2005 ' Black women raped by White men ' 0! By Lawrence Auster Commentary by David Duke ' The following article uses U.S. Government official crime figures to show that 37,460 White women and girls were raped by Black men in the United States in 2005. That is more than 100 White women raped by Blacks every day. In contrast, the government figures show that there are almost no rapes by White men against Black women! I will be called racist for putting these shocking facts on my website. But why is it that, when the exceedingly rare and often untrue White on Black crime occurs, there is an orgy of media coverage and guilt heaped upon the White community? The media went crazy over the clearly untrue allegation that some White Duke University students raped a Black drug addict and stripper; but there is not a word in the mainstream media about 37,460 White females each year suffering from such a terrible offense. If a Black person or someone of any other race falls victim to discrimination or any sort of harm at the hands of Whites, it is never called racism to publicize the issue. In the Duke case, how many thousands of times were the alleged perpetrators identified in media as 'White students' or 'White Lacrosse players' and the victim identified as a Black woman? In the media a White victim is just a 'victim' and a Black rapist is just a 'rapist.' If 36,460 Black women were being raped by White men a year compared to no White women raped by Black men, there would be front page stories about it, documentaries about it, political statements about it 'all across America. There would be protest marches in the streets. I dare say, the President of the United States would denounce such barbarism and racism. But, most Americans are not entitled to even know about these attacks against innocent White women. The numbers of White women victims of Black rape are about ten times the rate of Americans being seriously wounded in Iraq. We here at http://www.DavidDuke.com will not remain silent about it! We will continue to call attention to these racist attacks against White women and we demand action be taken to stop these horrible crimes. Like Ahab's search for the Great White Whale, liberals' search for the Great White Defendant is relentless and never-ending. When, in 1988, Tawana Brawley's and Al Sharpton's then year-old spectacular charge that several white men including prosecutor Steven Pagones (whose name Brawley had picked out of a newspaper article) had abducted and raped the 15 year old was shown to be completely false, the Nation said it didn't matter, since the charges expressed the essential nature of white men's treatment of black women in this country. When the Duke University lacrosse players were accused of raping a black stripper last year, liberals everywhere treated the accusation as fact, because, just as with the Nation and Tawana Brawley, the rape charge seemed to the minds of liberals to reflect the true nature of oppressive racial and sexual relations in America.To see the real truth of the matter, let us take a look at the Department of Justice document Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2005. (Go to the linked document , and under 'Victims and Offenders' download the pdf file for 2005.) In Table 42, entitled 'Personal crimes of violence, 2005, percent distribution of single-offender victimizations, based on race of victims, by type of crime and perceived race of offender,' we learn that there were 111,590 white victims and 36,620 black victims of rape or sexual assault in 2005. (The number of rapes is not distinguished from those of sexual assaults; it is maddening that sexual assault, an ill-defined category that covers various types of criminal acts ranging from penetration to inappropriate touching, is conflated with the more specific crime of rape.) In the 111,590 cases in which the victim of rape or sexual assault was white, 44.5 percent of the offenders were white, and 33.6 percent of the offenders were black. In the 36,620 cases in which the victim of rape or sexual assault was black, 100 percent of the offenders were black, and 0.0 percent of the offenders were white. The table explains that 0.0 percent means that there were under 10 incidents nationally. ... |
Now David Duke quickly moves on to his main point.
However, the slant becomes exaggerated in a significantly qualitative way
when he proceeds to completely ignore a large group
within the statistics he himself has selected, namely white rapists.
Less advanced readers (like our teenage racist shooter) may have
some difficulty understanding the fuller significance of the statistics,
and unfortunately, he is quickly whisked forward to a very oversimplified
picture painted by two highlighted facts.
I would even say that a sloppy or slow reader might even get the
impression from David Duke's language that there are no such thing
as white rapists, or that the main crime reflected in the stats was
that blacks were simply raping white girls, while white men were
too gentlemanly to commit rape, and too concerned about racial mixing
to touch black women.
However, a more realistic comparison reveals that:
(1) 44% of white girls were raped by white men, while only
33% of white girls were raped by black men.
Thus the facts relate that white women are 11% more likely to be
raped by a white man. Presumably 23% of white victims are
raped by other racial groups (i.e., Mexicans or Arabs) or even
other genders (other white women?).
That is not much comfort for rape victims, but it at least reflects
a more realistic picture of the danger.
In fact, the statistics seem to indicate that the moral corruption
among men could be about equal, allowing for the difference in
population size between white males and black males.
This may seem to be excusing white rapists, but we have to also mention
the possibility that black rapists might have less opportunities to
rape white women than white men do (having more access to white women).
The reasonable view overall then, seems to suggest that race itself
may not be a significant factor in rape, although gender quite clearly IS.
We can't pin rape as a crime on blacks or whites, but it does seem
that we can pin it to a significant degree on gender.
Whether that is cultural, or biological is a debate for a different thread.
I just want to focus here on the misuse of statistics to
create an emotional reaction upon those who might be susceptible to
manipulation by clever apologists for suspicious causes.
.
... The table does not gives statistics for Hispanic victims and offenders. But the bottom line on interracial white/black and black/white rape is clear: 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. 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. ... |
The result of David Duke's analysis is stunning and frightening (deliberately).
But what if we now add the corrective from the table as follows:
37,460 white women were raped by a black man(men): (33%).
49,100 white women were raped by a white man(men): (44%)
Apparently less than 10 black women were raped (!!!) per year, by anyone.
Thus the statistics look an awful lot like they are merely reflecting
the preferences of ALL rapists for white women.
This is surely remarkable, but on its face suggests that both
black and white rapists are "white supremists" when it comes to
selecting victims. They prefer white women.
Before we nod our heads and say
"77% of rapists (black or white) can't be wrong" in preferring white girls,
a little more research in the matter is likely to expose something
far more sinister than David Duke's theory that rape is a "black on white" crime.
The Department of Justice statistics refer, of course, to verified reports. According to the Wikipedia article on rape, as many as half of all rape charges nationally are determined by police and prosecutors to be false: |
It looks as if David Duke here hasn't considered the ramifications of
his own information:
Without even questioning the statistics on their face (although factors
could well be biasing both court outcomes and the statistics),
there is much to question here:
(1) What if rapes of black women are under-reported?
Before we suggest 'racism' as the sole or most significant cause,
remember that cops seem to be arresting as many white men for rape
as they are black men for rape. Thus if it is 'racism' it is a very
oddly selective form of racism.
(2) What if rapes of black women are less successfully prosecuted?
Again, other factors besides race may be at play, such as poverty issues,
available evidence, prejudice based on occupation (e.g., prostitutes etc.).
Linda Fairstein, former head of the New York County District Attorney's Sex Crimes Unit, noted, 'There are about 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half simply did not happen'. It's my job to bring justice to the man who has been falsely accused by a woman who has a grudge against him, just as it's my job to prosecute the real thing.' |
Lets just pause on this remarkable claim:
Suppose that (presumably) about 50% of rape allegations are successfully
filtered out before there is a trial and conviction.
The actual numbers for both black or white rapists might double if those
cases simply failed for lack of evidence or courage to come forward.
We might also question the accuracy of a 50% "sample" of real rapists,
reflecting accurate racial statistics.
But another question arises which is more hideous:
Granting that a certain percentage of cases may indeed be false allegations,
but nonetheless successfully pursued,
what is that relative likelihood of black false convictions to white false convictions?
Without knowing those statistics, its reasonable to at least suppose
that black men might be more likely to be convicted than white men,
for a variety of reasons, involving race and also other factors,
such as adequate defence, scapegoating, poverty issues etc.
No wonder there was such absolute belief in the guilt of the Duke students among the leading sectors of liberal America. A drug-addled, half-deranged, promiscuous black stripper accused three young white men of raping her. There are virtually zero rapes of black women by white men in the United States, and half of all rape charges against specific individuals turn out to be false. But in the gnostic, inverted world of liberal demonology, the white students had to be guilty. Meanwhile, in the real America, week after week, the newspapers report the rapes of white women by black men 'though, of course, without ever once using the words, 'a white woman was raped by black man.' Just last week in the New York Post there was a story about a serial black rapist who invaded women's apartments on Manhattan's Upper West Side; you knew the rapist was black from a police drawing accompanying the story, and you knew the victims were most likely white from the neighborhoods where the attacks occurred. But even when news media's reports of black on white rape make the race of the perpetrator evident (which the media only does in a minority of instances), no explicit reference is ever made to the racial aspect of the case. Each story of black on white rape is reported in isolation, not presented as part of a larger pattern. There is never the slightest mention of the fact that white women in this country are being targeted by black rapists. In the inverted world of liberalism, the phenomenon does not exist. image: http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/u/u/ll2/nopreview.jpg [Click to view image: '49874-rape1.jpg'] Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2ea_1178843957#E4VAiPiMqiZ7GsEu.99 |
Thus while David Duke appears hysterical about black on white rape,
I'm not quite convinced.
I'm thinking that yes, rape is a violent, horrific epidemic in America.
But I'm not so confident that this is a mostly racial crime,
when there appears to be a good case that its a gender crime,
a cultural crime, and a crime that is policed, judged, and defined in a way
that reflects and perpetuates racist attitudes.
We'd be far better off teaching and demanding that women have respect and protection,
than demanding that scapegoats be hunted down while fundamental social tragedies remain
unexamined.
