Saturday, May 5, 2007

Judge a tree by its (strange) fruit

The bad mojo dripping off Lawrence Auster’s interracial-rape spin job is making ripples in the blogosphere. Not the sort of ripples he was probably hoping for.

Things started turning funky yesterday morning when America’s best-known bigot, David Duke, reprinted Auster’s rape article in toto at www.DavidDuke.com. (Disregarding the copyright mark on FrontPage Magazine’s website.)

Duke attached his own preamble, including this elegant passage:

“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 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.”

I’m sure it brings Lawrence Auster no joy to have his byline beaming from David Duke’s homepage. He has described David Duke as “America’s biggest Jew-hater.” And Auster, you can be assured, harbors the utmost contempt for “hate-filled anti-Semites,” “rabid anti-Semites,” “virulent anti-Semites,” and their “moral idiocy.”

“I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again,” Auster blogged one year ago, “the hard-core Israel haters and anti-Semites are the scum of the earth.”

Well, ripple ripple ripple… look what’s happening since David Duke got in the game. Another racist blog has taken the liberty of republishing Auster’s careful prose. But KirksvilleToday.com (affiliated with neo-Nazi Alex Linder) went with a grabbier headline: “All Niggers Are Rapists.”

Blogger “kville” writes: “We post this article by jew Lawrence Auster (copied on David Duke’s site) as a public service for White girls and women. Niggers are rapists - almost every single one. All it takes is an opportunity.”

“kville” added this postscript to Auster’s social analysis:

“Jew Auster, of course, being a jew, doesn’t present the correct context…. [W]hat the JEW doesn’t tell you is that it was the proximity afforded these niggers to white women as a result of civil rights that made these rapes possible. The jews were the driving force behind civil rights. … The nigger rapist is the symptom, JEW IS THE DISEASE.”

You could’ve seen that one coming, right? Poisonous fruit from Auster’s poisonous tree.

35 comments:

Andrew said...

“The numbers of White women victims of Black rape are about ten times the rate of Americans being seriously wounded in Iraq."

Wow, that is quite possibly the most nonsensical, out of context statistic that I have ever seen. I think we should make a game of it. Here's mine:

The number of white women sexually assaulted by white men every day is approximately 4 times the amount of RBI's that Alex Rodriguez had in the month of April.

Undercover Black Man said...

I'll play:

The number of black women raped or sexually assaulted in the United States each day is less than one-tenth the number of Americans who die each day from heart disease.

I think you'll agree, Andrew, that's a startling statistic...

Hector said...

Regardless of what kind of person Auster is or how offensive his article might be, the numbers he's referring to are pretty damning on their own.

I don't remember what they were but essentially they showed that the occurrence of white-on-black rape is miniscule compared to black-on-white rape. These were government figures, not his.

How significant they are compared to casualties in Iraq or whatever is one thing, but it would be hard to deny that the numbers broken down by race are dramatic.

dez said...

Where are these statistics from? What was the method used to derive them? What was the mean and the standard deviation? How large was the sampling? What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?

Brendan M. Leonard said...

Those quotes from white supremacists are frightening, but not surprising. One of the most frustrating things about the President is that he seems to think terrorism doesn't apply to anyone who's not an Islamic fundmentalist -- in the leadup to Iraq, everytime he or one of his cronies would talk about the "War on Terror," I'd want to remind them of what used to be the deadliest act of terrorism on U.S. soil before 9/11. Much credit must go to the Southern Poverty Law Center for keeping an eye on these guys whenever possible.

This ongoing debate between yourself and Auster is fascinating, by the way.

Hector said...

dez,

1. The data (table 42 of the pdf) is from the DOJ.

2. The sample size was the population of convicted criminals in the U.S.

3. The method was looking at court records.

4. Standard deviations aren't applicable to a set of +/- results. They're only for sets of meaurements!

I guess you could say there is statistical "error" in the data due to improper conviction or acquittal or ureported rapes, but that's something else entirely.

sherifffruitfly said...

Wow. I go away for a few days, and everything goes to hell.

Christ - All I wanted to do was dig up Eddie Murphy's Raw standup skit of Jesse Jackson's Presidential Acceptance Speech. And make it Obama.

You guys are havin WAY more fun.

Random InterGhost said...

dez, those numbers were from the National Crime Victimization Survey, a large-scale survey produced every year by the government.

Essentially, it is a very very big kind of opinion poll asking people if they have been the victim of any one or more of a range of crimes in the previous year; researchers extrapolate out from the poll results to the whole population to come up with a number for total crimes.

The idea behind this approach is that it provides a more comprehensive picture than the Uniform Crime Reports (the FBI's compilation of reported crimes) because lots of crimes never get reported to the police, and, indeed, the NCVS numbers are always higher than the UCR numbers.

Ortho said...

Hi UBM. It seems your blog is blowing up. I saw this post on James Wolcott's Blog at Vanity Fair: Undercover Black Man Makes It Happen!

Good luck man!

Undercover Black Man said...

SheriffFruitfly and Ortho: Hells yeah, this joint is jumpin'!

I love the blogging medium... fun, entertaining, but we're getting into some real issues too.

Brendan: I'm with you on SPLC. The Intelligence Project (formerly Klanwatch) is the shit.

Andrew said...

I don't understand why some of you are debating the statistics. They come from a reliable source, so I have no reason to doubt them. I've been under the impression that what most people take issue with is the assinine conclusions Auster used that data to support.

James C. Collier said...

Andrew makes a good point, over and over. When you include all the factors that influence behavior, not just the crime and race, it ain't so easy. But of course too many folks on all sides don't want to get dirty with real analysis. Juxtaposing white males/income and black prostitutes with white rape by blacks, with a sidebar of argument of rape for sex vs control or both, would bury us all and stop all this yammerin.

Undercover Black Man said...

As Andrew says, merely dismissing the Justice Department's statistics as somehow unreliable isn't the way to go.

Obviously, there's an awful lot of black rape going on... way out of proportion to the size of the U.S. black population. Tens of thousands of white women are raped or sexually assaulted by black men per year. (Just as tens of thousands of white women are raped or sexually assaulted by white men, and tens of thousands of black women are raped or sexually assaulted by black men.)

These are facts of American life.

I'm concerned with the way these facts are spun... particularly by people who seem motivated by a racial animus, not by reason.

Let me show you how crime stats can be spun to draw dubious (though logical-sounding) conclusions...

In 1996, Justice Department statistician Lawrence A. Greenfield wrote a report called "Child Victimizers: Violent Offenders and Their Victims."

Greenfield studied imprisoned violent offenders. Equal numbers of those inmates were white (48.0%) and black (48.1%). Yet "nearly 70% of child victimizers were white," he wrote, "while just over 25% of child victimizers were black."

Stated another way, "About 27% of all white inmates in State prisons for violent crimes committed their crimes against a child; less than 10% of black inmates serving time for violence had a child victim."

Let's see how we could spin that, if we were motivated by an anti-white animus...

Even black men predisposed to violent crime are nearly three times less likely to victimize a child than white criminals are.

That means white criminals disproportionately target their vicious violence at children -- the weakest, most vulnerable among us.

What does this say about white people as a whole? Are they more sickly perverse? Or just more cowardly? Whatever it is, what can white people do to protect their little ones from these white savages?

Thordaddy said...

Mr. Mills,

The problem with your analysis is that almost no one on either side of the political divide is giving defense to white child predators. In fact, there's a popular show on MSNBC that does a very good job of exposing many of these white predators (along with other predators of different skin color). Secondly, very few will put up an argument concerning your stats because whites in general (along with most people of any skin color) have no affinity for child predators. Now compare that to the litany of excuses, justifications, rationales, etc. given in respect to the DOJ rapes stats?

The question that immediately comes to mind when confronting these stats about black on white rape is why the complete blackout in the MSM? And speaking of white criminals, what are the stats of black male on white male rape in our prisons? Again, such information is curiously unimportant to our MSM.

What conclusions are one to draw from this reality?

Whatup said...

Maybe we could spin those statistics another way: Though blacks make up only 12% of the population, around 25% of the criminals whose victims were children were black, making them twice as likely as whites to victimize kids.

C. Van Carter said...

"Let me show you how crime stats can be spun to draw dubious (though logical-sounding) conclusions"

You don't understand your own numbers. Blacks are twice as likely as whites to perpetrate crimes against children, but because blacks commit non-child related crimes at such high rates a smaller proportion of blacks are in prison for child related crimes.

"Obviously, there's an awful lot of black rape going on"

Why do you think this is?

James said...

whatup, you're not "spinning" the stats. You're interpreting them correctly. David Mills is interpreting them incorrectly. His example of "spin" is actually an example of either evil, stupidity, or insanity or some combination of the three.

Undercover Black Man said...

Welcome, C. Van. I appreciate your comment.

Having never committed rape, nor surveyed any practicing felons, I couldn't begin to explain the disproportion of black rape (or black violent crime generally).

Maybe, like some of the race theorists claim, black men have more testosterone than white men (and Asians have the least of all). That at least seems to be a quantifiable matter.

It should be researched. It should be talked about publicly. I don't think people should be shouted down when they bring up the disproportion of black violent crime.

Part of what attracted me to Lawrence Auster's writing in the first place was his critique of liberal/egalitarian orthodoxy.

But spinning crime statistics to foment racial animus -- that is, dealing with this subject not fair-mindedly but with an ideological agenda -- that's when I call bullshit.

Let me restate my point on the child-victimization numbers, since you don't seem to have tracked it.

Whites tend to view white behavior and white characteristics as norms for the human race. That's the intellectual history of the West... assessing all other races by how they deviate from white norms. As with crime, IQ, or (as I recently pointed out with regard to Harriet Beecher Stowe) styles of religious observance.

Therefore, apply the same rule to child victimization. If 27 percent of white violent criminals target children, call that the American norm. Now, if only 10 percent of black violent criminals go after kids, that means they're less likely than white criminals to victimize kids.

Look, if the data went the other way -- if, say, 35 percent of black criminals victimized kids instead of adults -- you could legitimately declare that black criminals are more likely than white ones to attack children.

It's not a conclusion or an inference... it's a fact that a given white criminal is more of a threat to children (nearly three times more of a threat) than a given black criminal.

Again, if the data cut the other way, Lawrence Auster would feel entitled to yell from the rooftops that innate Negro savagery drives them to disproportionately brutalize innocent children!

While I'm back on Auster, check this out: If black violent criminals are savages (and Auster states flat-out that this is what he meant to say in his 1995 essay), wouldn't you expect "savages" to attack defenseless children at the same rate, if not a higher rate, than (non-savage?) white violent criminals?

Greenfield, the Justice Department statistician, reports:

"While nearly 70% of those serving time for violent crimes against children were white, whites accounted for (only) 40% of those imprisoned for violent crimes against adults."

Therefore, white criminals disproportionately target children.

Why do you think that is, C. Van?

James said...

You still don't understand your own numbers. Whites are not three times more likely to be child predators.

You're failing to take into account that there are six or seven times more of them. If whites were really three times more likely to be child predators you would find that something like 95% of such criminals would be white, because they already make up 75% of the general population. In fact, the numbers you cite show that 25% of child predators are black despite the fact that they're only 12-13% of the population. Do you not get this?

As an aside, I'll point out that this study (which I can't look into more because the link you posted in a Amazon sales page), seems to count Hispanics in among the whites because it only leaves 4% of the general population to be non-black-or-white, which hasn't been the case in this country since about when my mom was born.

You might still have a point with Auster, you're just not making with this example.

Try to add more argument to your posts. You seem to rely heavily on unstated inference and implication.

Undercover Black Man said...

James: You're demonstrating how statistics can be so tendentiously misused, and how conclusions drawn from statistics can muck up an issue, not clarify it.

I did not say whites are three times more likely to be child victimizers.

I said white violent criminals are nearly three times more likely than black ones to victimize children instead of adults.

This is a fact the implications of which you seem unwilling to consider.

What white racialists tend to do, whenever statistical race differences show up, is draw conclusions about the essential nature of black people. They do this not because objective reasoning leads them there; they do this because they start with the presumption that blacks are inherently different (in mind, body and soul) from whites.

For instance: Black players make up about 80 percent of the NBA. White-racialist conclusion: blacks were bred for athleticism during slavery.

Only 2 percent of U.S. commercial airline pilots are black. White-racialist conclusion: blacks are mentally inferior to whites, and therefore less suited to the complex task of flying planes.

(Black racialists and liberal ideologues do the same thing in reverse. The conclude any statistical race differences are somehow due to white racism.)

Well, what about this statistical race difference? In a given group of white violent criminals, nearly three times more of them will have victimized children than would be the case in a group of black criminals.

Put simply: white criminals are more likely than black criminals to prey on children.

So why not leap to conclusions about the essential nature of white people? Why do they target kids more? Maybe whites are more prone to perversion and mental illness. Maybe whites are cowardly, and thus act out violently more often against those who are defenseless.

This is Auster's ball game. I just brought my own bat and glove.

James said...

"Put simply: white criminals are more likely than black criminals to prey on children.

So why not leap to conclusions about the essential nature of white people?"

Because you're talking about data for the subset of white criminals and making conclusions about the set of white people in general. Lawrence Auster is talking about data for the set of black people in general and making conclusions about black people in general, WHICH MAKES SENSE, unless you discount the power of statistics in the first place.

Do you have a problem with drawing any conclusions about groups of people based on statistics? Or is your problem just that Auster has misinterpreted the data?

Whatup said...

So, why do you think that blacks make up 80% of the NBA? Surely not from any inherent attributes, because we all know that it's completely cultural.

"Maybe whites are cowardly": could be why so few of them become criminals, though I'd say that aggressiveness or the lack of it is a better comparison. Or impulse control or the lack of it.

Violent white criminals may well be more likely to victimize children. The thing is, I'm all for locking them up and I don't make excuses like "racism" for them, and I don't believe that shooting the messenger has any value. It doesn't change the fact that blacks in general are twice as likely to victimize children as whites in general.

Undercover Black Man said...

James wrote: "Do you have a problem with drawing any conclusions about groups of people based on statistics?"

Stats can be very informative. Or stats can be very misleading.

All the more reason to demand that commentators who throw stats around operate fair-mindedly, not driven by ideology or racial animus.

C. Van Carter said...

"You're demonstrating how statistics can be so tendentiously misused, and how conclusions drawn from statistics can muck up an issue, not clarify it."

The only one misusing statistics is you.

VictorK said...

Auster is certainly an odd character.

An incisive commentator on Islam who is also idiotically naive on matters of race (he hung out with the American Renaissance for ages crowd until he discovered that some of his white nationalist buddies were die-hard anti-semites of the kind who'd like nothing more than to shove him into a gas-oven - Auster's blog records his near-hysterical and comical ravings at discovering, in the end, what anyone with a grain of commonsense would have discerned at the beginning about racial ideologues).

For all his routine egocentricity, occasional silliness, and increasingly vicious nastiness on the subject of race, Auster is a man with an important contribution to make in the debate about the future of America and the West; yet some mental flaw causes him to regularly play straight into the hands of his left-liberal enemies and compromise his position and taint his message, on other, more significant topics, by putting out deeply offensive - but, more importantly, off-topic - asides re his obsessive racist hatred of blacks.

It's strange to me that Auster claims to be a Christian but doesn't doesn't display so much as a hint of the spirit of Christ; he might more appropriately be described as a pharisee. This is a man who denounces as anti-semitic people like Kevin Macdonald who do not possess a fraction of Auster's own racist venom.

The subject of racial disparities in crime shouldn't be off-limits; it's Auster's use of it to propound his own Hitlerite and Klannish views on blacks that should be. Of course Duke is taking him to his bosom on this one.

Well done David for shining a light on Auster's foolish and self-defeating racist propagandising.

Diana said...

Undercover, I normally love your blog, but surely you are not serious about the theory of testosterone as leading to higher rates of rape??!! As if rape is a physical imperative or something? Rape is VIOLENCE against women. It is about power, not hormones. Witness how it is used as a weapon in war.
I'm listening to all you men debating the statistics here totally without empathy, don't you get it? Rape destroys the lives of women.

Ana Baptist said...

Don't most rapes occur between acquaintances (i.e. date rape)? And don't more black men date white women than vice versa? That could account for a discrepancy.

Also, you would have to present statistics of rape in multiple black communities throughout the world (Cuba, Haiti, Kenya, St. Thomas) to determine if this is a uniquely American phenomenon or a global trend.

Undercover Black Man said...

VictorK: Welcome to bloggerland, and thank you so much for taking the time to comment.

Your analysis of the hitch in Auster's get-along is pinpoint precise... the best I've read since this hot mess erupted last Friday.

I might not agree with you on how "important" Auster's contribution to the future of the West could be, but I do think he's often interesting to read on subjects like Islam, immigration, feminism, etc. I'll still read him.

Dougfp said...

Man, all these statistics are making my head spin. But I will say this...wouldn't the fact that black men rape white women in greater numbers than white men rape black women be at least partially due to the fact, there's a HELL OF A LOT MORE WHITE WOMEN THAN THERE ARE BLACK? And therefore, way more potential white victims than black?

I would venture (and please...no one run the data) that Dutch-Americans rape more white women than black for the same reason.

The savages!!

xoites said...

It seems to me there are many red herrings in these statistics. To start with i can not possibly believe that less than 10 black women were raped by white men last year two years ago or five years ago in a population of three hundred million people.

This would not be the first time government statistics have been misrepresented or falsified. Consider if you will, for a moment that NASA scientists have been prohibited from speaking about global warming until recently under this administration. This is not a reality based group in charge here.

Our culture places a higher value on being white than being black from advertising to education to health care to employment and especially in sex appeal.

Rape is an act of violence. People who rape are angry. Why would a rapist choose a victim of percieved means and power over an "ordinary" victim? Well, perhaps to punish those percieved to be "above" him.

Rape is not a liesure activity nor is it a sexual activity. It is violence. Why are people violently releasing rage and frustration? Is it because our society is running on all cyliders for all its citizens? I don't think so.

Collectively you and i rape every day. Don't believe me? I have news for you, we do. We joke about it on late night tv. "When you go to prison try not to drop the bar of soap in the shower." Yes, we pay our taxes for a prison system that promotes rape as part of your punishment, so don't get caught!

This article by this narrow minded racist is twisted and ignorant on so many levels i can not begin to conceive how he could be set straight on the facts of reality.

He just raped an entire race and he is not even aware of it.

Undercover Black Man said...

I feel what you're saying, Xoites. I do. But that argument... it's almost like handling a snake.

Are you saying black rapists are entitled to feel rage towards white women in particular? Are they entitled to express that rage? Are white women deserving of rape because of white-skin privilege?

Owww... snakebite!

I want to know how we can cut through the race-baiting on one side and the excuse-making on the other, and get violent crime under control... for everybody's betterment.

xoites said...

No, i am sorry. I do not mean that at all. Nobody deserves violence. What i am saying is that a rapist has rage. Rage comes from somewhere even if it is not justified. Even if it is just perception. People who find themselves disenfranchised or disconected from others and have rage may look for someone to take it out on. All too often it is those closest to them. Sometimes a stranger. I am not pretending to be a sociologist nor an expert on rape. These stats make no sense to me and it would not be surprising to me if they have been altered to fit someone's agenda. It would not surprise me at all.

Amnesty International just came out with a report that states: "Native American and Alaska Native women are more than 2.5 times more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted than other women in the United States in general."

You can read about it here:

http://www.amnestyusa.org/Womens_Human_Rights/Join_Voices_with_Native_American_and_Alaska_Native_Women/page.do?id=1021163&n1=3&n2=39&n3=1410

Hardheaded Liberal said...

Undercover, you certainly have attracted a group of idiots trying to spin a small number of reported incidents into a racial characteristic! The data analyzed in Hector's Table 42 include only reports by white & black victims in the survey, which included only 53 incidents, about 76% white victims. (See PS below.)

Fifty-three events is a precious small sample to base any conclusions on. Auster was reckless to assert that this small sample showed anything meaningful.

Out of 77,200 households, only 53 households reported a rape in the year covered by the survey. That's less than one household in each 1,400 surveyed.

Hector's description of the source of the data is completely wrong. In fact, the data is based on a national survey of 77,200 households. See http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm#ncvs
If Hector had ever read the cover page that he had on his data link, he would have seen the section of the original report labeled
"Survey Methodology". Hector simply fabricated this in his post:

"2. The sample size was the population of convicted criminals in the U.S.
"3. The method was looking at court records."
I judge that Hector's opinions are about as accurate and sensible as his grasp of the facts he's relying on.

PS The actual number of reports can be estimated from the asterisks (*) on Table 42. Note at bottom of the table shows that an asterisk marks any cell in the table that recorded 10 or fewer actual sample cases (i.e. reported events). The total # of black victims of violence (including threatened violence) was estimated to be 507,210. The percent of black victims who reported that the attacker was of an "other" race (neither black nor white) was 5.6%, or an estimated total of 28,400 attacks. Since that percent is marked with an asterisk, the actual number of reports in the survey was ten or less. We have to divide the estimated total of 28,400 by 2,800 to 3,000 to reduce the number of reports to ten or less.

Using 2,800, the total estimate of 111,490 white rape victims is based on 40 actual reports and the estimate of 36,620 black rape victims is based on 13 reports by black victims.

PPS I comment from my experience as a white lawyer who practiced civil rights law in the South for 35 years. I have no tolerance for ignorant white racists. And Auster, Hector and their ilk are as ignorant as they come.

Undercover Black Man said...

For all concerned, I have posted the complete text of my May 2006 letter to David Horowitz regarding Lawrence Auster’s oft-expressed racial animus. It is here, on my newly launched “text annex.”

Now this blog can get return to the fun stuff.

Anonymous said...

I've seen first hand what blacks are doing to white women.
A girl I dated, who is white, was raped once by a black man when she was 14 and again at gunpoint when she was 19. She didn't report either of them, but lives with the shame everyday.
It's disgusting how these facts never make it to mainstream media. White women should be afraid of black men...FACT.