Tuesday, May 8, 2007
‘Mills is a one-man destroyer of interracial outreach.’
Man… crazy few days, huh? My blogger-boner is just now subsiding.
But Lawrence Auster remains at maximum tumescence. (It may be time to seek immediate medical attention.)
Last Saturday – one day after David Horowitz “austercized” him in response to a Huffington Post piece I wrote – Larry Auster was thrilled to tell readers that his article about black-on-white rape (for Horowitz’s FrontPageMag.com) had “set off more discussion on the Web than anything I’ve previously written.”
Auster broke it down: “A Google search for my name and ‘interracial rape’ turns up 498 results. A search for my name at blogs turns up many results also – the biggest response in the blogosphere to any article I’ve done.”
Yet as the days roll on, Lawrence Auster gets madder and madder at me for shining a spotlight on his scarcely-known ass.
Auster is so mad, he says it might affect his future dealings with black people.
“[A]fter my experience with Mills, with whom I had a friendly and extensive e-mail correspondence,” he blogged last night, “imagine how likely I am in the future to entertain any other blacks who like Mills challenge me while also claiming to be interested in discussion with me.”
(You have a lower opinion of black people now because of me, you’re saying? The whole raping-white-women-by-the-thousands thing didn't turn you off totally?)
“Not that David Mills cares, but, since he seems to enjoy interchange with white conservatives... doesn’t he realize that as a result of his treasonous behavior toward me, in which he glories, it’s unlikely that any white conservative who knows what Mills did to me will want to have anything to do with him or anyone like him?” Auster wrote. “Mills is a one-man destroyer of interracial outreach.”
Go back and read that paragraph again.
The man who claimed that “white women in this country are being targeted by black rapists” – based on Justice Department statistics that he now admits he interpreted wrongly! – he’s calling me a divider, not a uniter.
Auster didn’t even realize, until two of his readers emailed him on Sunday, that the Department of Justice data were “estimates” and “projections” based on a public survey – not hard numbers based on actual reported crimes. (He blames the DOJ for not making that clearer in the text.)
Before I get to those numbers, let’s take a closer look at the number that made Mr. Auster pop his buttons: “A Google search for my name and ‘interracial rape’ turns up 498 results.”
Well, I ran that exact Google search last night. And the results total had swollen to more than 1,000. Goodness gracious!
Thing of it is, that does not mean there are 1,000 discrete webpages discussing Lawrence Auster’s bold social criticism.
Anyone who Google-surfs a lot can tell you, many of those “results” are duplicative and will be “omitted” as you click through the results pages.
Sure enough, as I clicked through the results pages, that impressive four-figure number of “hits” collapsed down to 78. (Give it a try at home.)
Google, of course, allows you to “repeat the search with the omitted results included,” so I did that, to see where all the duplication was coming from.
Well, more than 50 of those original Google hits pointed to Auster’s own blog; he has the words “Lawrence Auster” and “interracial rape” on his main page. So every other article on his main page registers as a separate hit on this wide search.
Hundreds more hits are attributable to one single site – something called redstatemobile.com, which I believe is a “news aggregator,” though I know nothing at all about aggregrators or how they distort Google search results.
Except they do. (I ran this search again just now; Google displayed an astounding total of 9,670 results… which collapsed down to 83 as soon as I clicked on page 10.)
His self-Googling delusions of grandeur tell the tale about Auster’s head for numbers. His intellectual facility is now as open to question as his good faith.
What a shame some right-wingers are happily parroting his conclusions about the prevalence of black-on-white rape... and the so-called “0.0 percent” incidence of white-on-black rape.
Auster based his article solely on data from 2005, at this Justice Department webpage. You know what else is available on that webpage? Data for each of the previous 10 years.
So one of Auster’s readers, “Ken H.,” decided to do what Auster should have – or what David Horowitz should have demanded: He crunched the numbers on the last 10 years’ worth of victimization estimates for interracial rape and sexual assault, then he averaged them out to get a clearer picture… to smoothe out any year-by-year anomalies.
Auster published Ken H.’s analysis on his blog under an innocuous headline – “New perspectives on the DOJ data.”
It blows Auster’s most inflammatory statements out of the water.
“When the victim is black, the (perceived) race of the offender is white about 6 percent of the time,” Ken H. wrote. “When the victim is white, the (perceived) race of the offender is black about 12 percent of the time.”
Only 12 percent of the rapists who attack white women are black? Auster said it was 33.6 percent! And based on that, he broke out the boldface font to declare: “[E]very day in the United States, over one hundred white women are raped or sexually assaulted by a black man.”
Going by Ken H.’s 10-year average, let’s adjust that down to 36 white women per day sexually attacked by a black man. Compared to 8 black women a day sexually attacked by a white man.
Disproportionate, yes. But not the kind of numbers with which to gin up a lynch party. Ken H. presents another useful comparison:
“[W]e can estimate that each year, for every 100,000 white females, about 25 are raped by black men; for every 100,000 black females, about 16 are raped by white men.”
In other words, 3,000 black women per year are sexually attacked by whites, as opposed to Auster’s claim of “virtually zero rapes of black women by white men in the United States.”
So how did Auster respond to his reader Ken H.’s extrapolations?
By saying it’s time to take a step back. “I will have more on this in the next couple of days,” Auster wrote. “Enough on this for now.”
Oh fuck me runnin’. What’s Larry gonna try to pull out of his ass next?
And while I’m in a quizzifying mood, let me ask this: When Auster brought his box of dynamite to David Horowitz at FrontPage Magazine, why did Horowitz hand him a book of matches?
And why in hell is Lawrence Auster’s misread, misinterpreted, misstated, dishonest heap of steaming horseshit still there on Horowitz’s website?
(P.S. If you want to see more photos by that chick eating the black-and-white cookie, peep her out at soysicksarah.vox.com.)