Posts
Phi, notice that your sickeningly inappropriate and gratuituous reference to gang rape was deleted.
Not only was it absolutely irrelevant to a post about flags and sensitivity, it was deliberately offensive to female readers. Furthermore, it was racist. It is ridiculous to suggest the high rape rate in South Africa -- primarily of black women by black men -- is caused by whites being a minority in South Africa. It is absolutely unacceptable that you would use that sad situation in to support a snide, flippant suggestion that women in this country will face a rape epidemic by minorities due to immigration.
Here is what I wrote (comment deleted from bobvis):
But the question goes unanswered: what, if not lineage, defines us? On what grounds do we refer to ourselves as "a people" or "one nation"? Here again, if your answer is by something other than a set of racial and cultural norms (not homogeneity, mind you, but as the "expected value" of a distribution) then you are advancing a definition that is historically unprecedented.
But see, the circumstances that force us to have this discussion -- the presense in our midst of visible minorities with their own competing identies -- are bad enough. What happens when the minority becomes a majority?
To illustrate my point, a future majority of California, and perhaps the U.S., may one day fly the flag of Aztlan. But it is not in the rational self-interest of the present majority to choose that future among the alternatives available to us today. It IS in our interest to remain a majority in our own country, since the alternative, um, really bites.
I subsequently allowed:
For what it is worth, I will concede, upon reflection, that the article about rape in South Africa was not as on point as it might have been.
Specifically, the article in question did not break out statistically the disproportionate threat of interracial gang rape suffered by white women. Since, in context, that was the only reason for linking to the article, I shouldn't have done it.
But let's not be quite so squeamishly Victorian about what the actual facts of rape are. From our own Bureau of Justice Statistics, Table 40:
Rape/Sexual Assault
Total offenses: 160,270
Percent by white perpetrators: 32.8
Percent by black perpetrators: 48.5
So it appears that, despite being only 14% of the population, blacks manage to commit almost a majority of rapes in America. Granted, most of these are intra-racial. But of those that are not (Table 42):
Rape/Sexual assault of Whites
Total # 111,490
Percent by White Perpetrator: 44.5%
Percent by Black Perpetrator: 33.6%
Rape/Sexual assault of Blacks
Total # 36,620
Percent by White Perpetrator: 0%
Percent by Black Perpetrator: 100%
Let's face it: I couldn't have made up statistics better (or, rather, worse) than this. Even though they are only 14% of the population, blacks still succeed in committing a third of all rapes of white women and 100% of all rapes of black women. If the Department of Justice is to be believed, white men did not rape a single black woman in all of 2005 (most recent data).
With more time, I could extrapolate this profile to the demographics of South Africa, and calculate the threat of rape to white women there.
But I'm not really . . . interested in South Africa. I am interested in the United States, and about the impact of hispanic immigration on all manner of social variables, including crime in, and including rape. Unfortunately, the DOJ has no racial category of "hispanic", so it's a lot harder answering the question about their present and future impact. The best estimate I can find so far is Jared Taylor's (yeah, I know, Jared-Taylor-big-scary-racist, so impeach the data, but in the mean time):
• Hispanics commit violent crimes at roughly three times the white rate.
Not exactly a harbinger of future safety.
6 comments:
What I find just as disturbing as the lopsided nature of interracial rape is the near silence about it in the mainstream media and how it keeps the general public ignorant of these facts.
It is not an accident. It is one of the many examples of the anti-White regime that dominates our society. This rape information is suppressed because it directly contradicts the anti-White propaganda spread by academia and the media. The media in fact inverts reality by, for example, broadcasting noose stories nationwide. The premise is that only Whites are capable of racism, and that any racial disparity in results, eg. the education gap or mortgage redlining, must be caused by racism.
The above is directly related to a comment you left at my blog a while back concerning racial harassment at the Superdome in the wake of Katrina. I just saw this comment (sorry) and answered it.
Thanks for the references about black racism at the Superdome; I should do a post on it.
You are correct: "anti-White" has become the default paradigm throughout the commanding heights of our social order, so much so that it has become a matter of mental and social hygiene.
Exhibit A: the kerfluffle over at bobvis. Spungen, like so many women today, have a lot of themselves invested in their own sexual emancipation. But there are features of reality that make the world an ugly place, especially for women, and that ugliness is kept at bay by two forces:
- the moral precepts of the Christian religion; and
- white men with guns.
The most charitable interpretation to Spungen's reaction is that, upon being confronted with reality, she decides that if these things were true . . . well, that would be a bad thing, and only bad people think bad things.
The uncharitable interpretation is that all the skirt-clutching is in bad faith.
You're right. Illegitimi non carborundum.
Spungen and bobvis wouldn't last five minutes in a no-holds-barred debate where they couldn't play their "racist" trump card to silence you. They think their willful blindness and totalitarian liberalism will curry them favor with the Noble Savages. They wouldn't last five minutes alone (in a cell for instance) with them either. The consequences would also be more likely to be life threatening than a tongue lashing.
We not only don't have any obligation to indulge their dream world, we must stand against and undo it if we want to survive.
More up to date data (2006) is available here (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_43.html)
What should be noted is that while categories for “American Indian or Alaskan Native” & “Asian or Pacific Islander” are included, there is no category for one of the largest racial/ethnic groups in the Unite States – “Hispanic or Latino”. What makes is even more of a glaring omission is that, unlike Asians, Hispanics, especially those who are Latino immigrants, are regularly involved in a wide variety of criminal activities.
This is a matter much discussed on other forums, and I probably don’t really need to point this out, still – the reason this large group does not have it’s own perpetrator category is that ALL Hispanic criminals are counted as being white.
While some with Hispanic surnames are clearly of a significant Caucasian admixture, the FBI and USDOJ choose to also include those who are clearly of a significant Negro admixture as well (not to mention those who appear to be largely of and indigenous Amerind admixture). The simple fact is that the decision as been made to lump all Hispanically named criminal defendants so as to off-set the even bigger discrepancies between white and black that would be seen if they were to be placed into their own separate category.
But…
Getting back to the original subject, I am truly amazed that women, like this Spungen, who one might imagine would be quite interested/concerned about the subject of rape, seem to be too squeamish about the reality of the demographics of rapists to even be willing to allow any discussion of the matter. From what I can gather, as a relative newcomer, she is a criminal defense attorney (perhaps even alternate defense counsel). As such, she should be all too aware of the over representation of blacks and Hispanics amongst the ranks of criminal defendants.
My own wife is a prosecuting attorney (DA), and can readily account for this inescapable observation. It’s truly amazing that a sizable majority of the criminal cases she handles involve either black or illegal-immigrant Hispanic defendants, and the callous nature in which such defendants commit crimes.
While I haven’t been reading the Bobvis blog post long enough to know if there has been a pattern of interjecting race and rape into otherwise unrelated discussions (my gawd, how much time can one endure of reading about shallow people obsessing about “Prole” vs Elite status?). Still, she does seem hyper-vigilant about specifically looking for any mention, presumably disregarding any relationship to the subject at hand.
I guess my question would be (since you seem to know more about her than do I) is under what, if any, discussion circumstances, the very real and very important matter of criminality by race/ethnicity would be considered appropriate? Does she not understand the very real consequence faced by other women, even if she does feel “safe” in her own circumstances? What possible good can come to women from “burying” the facts?
I guess I’d also add that, in line with the point you had intended to make, the increasing numbers of illegal immigrants from a culture where drunk driving is considered “macho”, bribing police to avoid charges a way of life, and where gangs of men abducting random women for forcible gang-rapes is considered just a normal thing for guys to do; Spugen, et. al, ought to be very concerned about the perils of what women will face in the future here.
Perhaps, on the other hand, when those “white” newcomers begin increasing their criminal activities, she can gleefully point to the narrowing of the black-white crime gap.
slwerner
Thanks, t. For what it's worth, though, Bobvis heretofore has always been a gentleman, unusually open-minded regarding our disagreements, and even willing to step on liberal shibboleths himself from time to time. The speed with which he used the "R" word in this instance is out of character.
And let's face it: we're peddling some hard truths! If the pre-9/11 Ф were to read the product of today's Ф, he would no doubt be mortified. A lot of people are still catching up.
Phi, I don't think the truth needs peddling so much as it needs to simply be available and not suppressed.
Stephen, you make two excellent points: the miscounting of hispanic criminals as White distorts crime statistics, and the question "under what, if any, discussion circumstances, the very real and very important matter of criminality by race/ethnicity would be considered appropriate?"
Note how the first helps thwart addressing the second.
Where is the diversity?
Post a Comment