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.”
Congratulations, Larry!
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.”
Wow.
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.”
Say what?
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.)
38 comments:
All these numbers are making my head spin. As a woman it doesn't really matter to me who is doing the raping, black, white, hispanic - it's all rape to me.
How sad for Larry that he can no longer point to you as his "black friend" when he wants to demonstrate what an open minded uniter he is.
In the parlance of his people - the Jewish ones - he's such a putz.
And your rapier wit is making me laugh - too bad not everyone can keep up.
Decades from now, the name David Mills will be known in history as the man responsible for the racial divide in America.
You still ignore an absolute truth, the same one that everyone else is ignoring. It's the elephant in the room, really.
Black males rape white females at several times the rate that white males rape black females. This is regardless of the fact that there is a huge differential in the total population of each racial group in the USA. So the question is, why do blacks target whites for the crime of rape at such a high rate?
Also, help end the media blackout on the murders of Channon Christian and Chris Newsom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom_Murder
^ I can't help you on the latter. I'm down with Yacub 7 Ali.
I like your new picture. Much more menacing than the one that caused one commenter to call you a "chubby-faced accountant".
Now I'd definitely get off the elevator when you got on!
^ Hee hee...
So just because he met one black person he didn't like he won't like any black people?
If that's not racist, then I don't know what is.
In honor of your monumental achievement of being solely responsible for the racial divide in America, I bring you this present ("Family Guy Steals From Simpsons"):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZnNsbtsUV0
All I can say to you, UBM, is that if you think you can fight the Lawrence Auster's of the world with reason and fact, you're in for a rude awakening, mister. And you can quote me on that.
:-)
**Everybody** knows that's black folks' problem: white folks TRY to like black folks, but they just won't LET white folks like them. It is beyond doubt that white folks *want* to like black folks. White folks would *never* simply make up an excuse to rationalize away their "distrust" of black folks.
Why won't you let the nice white folks like you, UBM?
Am I the only shocked that David Horowitz could be shamed into doing anything?
Maybe you could ask Larry Mondello, er Auster, what there is in what you said about him that merits his assessment of it as "treasonous". Is he suggesting that calling a right wing dim-wit on his serial idiocies is now all it takes to call someone treasonous? "L'etat, c'est moi!!!!!!!!!" So says Larry?
Don't worry, if he really wants a "black friend" there is always Deroy Murdoch.
My friends on EbonyFriends.com and I all think it is about the white and black's race predjuce.
"Each day over 100 white women are raped by a black man"?
That's one busy brother.
"When Auster brought his box of dynamite to David Horowitz at FrontPage Magazine, why did Horowitz give him a book of matches?"
One wonders if these "Conservatives" believe in evolution.
Wingnut is a good term to group such people. It is just a shame we have to spend so much time (tip of the hat to constant stable service by Bloggers like Glenn Greenwald) dealing with this nutty horseshit.
This is what happens when reality is replaced with wishfull thinking and the resultant propaganda. So the answer to your question? They are prejudiced. Prejudice means having a conclusion in place before any evidence is analyzed.
Man, those cookies always make me think of that Star Trek episode. Which always makes me think of those cookies.
I wonder if Starbucks has any...
Anonymous,
Please ask a rape victim if it matters the colour of the rapist.
Susie wrote: "As a woman it doesn't really matter to me who is doing the raping, black, white, hispanic - it's all rape to me."
I hear you. As another woman commented on a previous thread, there's something, I'm sure, a little off-putting about men discussing this subject with such a fixation on statistics and ideology... so removed from the true pain of the crime on a human level.
Dez: Thanks for the gift. Just what I wanted!
Anonymous wrote: "Maybe you could ask Larry Mondello, er Auster..."
Good sir! I thought I detected the singular tang and fluidity of your prose on a previous comment. Now that I know it's you, I have but one question:
Don't you have more important things to do than read blogs? ;^D
I'm not a psychiatrist, but anyone who uses the term "treasonous" to describe behavior toward himself is engaging in paranoid delusions. L'etat, c'est moi!
This is the craziest topic, I have ever seen. Obviously this man, Larry, whoever he is, needs some help and he must not have anything else to do. Tell him he must go out and help the homeless, volunteer at a shelter, or do some other community service work, or just help a neighbor, paint or mend a fence. This would take his mind off of this topic that he is using to stir up trouble and divide people. We are all one family, ask him to help the next person he sees, no matter what race or ethnicity. Thank you! Queenbee101 Peace out!
I am just astounded at the tripe that people post on the internet. This Larry, obviously needs to get some help. He needs to go out and find someone else to assist, perhaps some of the homeless or someone less fortunate. It sounds as though he needs something to do. Tell him to go out and feed the homeless or get shelter or volunteer with some organization that assists people in need. That would keep him off the web with this crap. Talk about divisive, we don't have enough to worry about without this racist junk. Tell him to go help an old person or help a neighbor paint a room or mend a fence. That will give him something constructive to do instead of this destructive bent that he is on. Oh, and tell him in the World Family, we don't care what color the person is that we are helping! Tell him he might want to think of that! Thanks! QueenBee, peace out!
What Auster needs is to pay closer attention to statitics. He made two mistakes: 1. Thought that an asterisk meant less than 10 in the extrapolated number when it actually meant less than 10 in the sample meaning that you can't trust it. 2. Relied on a single year's data.
Susie, I hear you too. But you wouldn't want people to make policy based on anecdotes would you?
"Milk is a one-man destroyer of interracial outreach"
You are so right, and the fact that the girl eating the cookie doesn't have one tells us all we need to know!
Gee, I thought we were on the same side. I made a comment on Auster's idiocies and for some reason you seem offended. Maybe you're confusing me with one of the other Anonymous posters, maybe the one who commented moments after me and addressed the same "treason" comment and also quoted the Sun King. I say this because I never looked at your site until yesterday and the comment that got you all snarky was my first and only. So sorry my convoluted verbal support didn't meet your high standards.
^ Dude! I'm so sorry... I thought you were my buddy David Simon. I was just busting his balls he's producing two HBO shows at the same time right now.
(The "Mondello" thing also threw me because Simon and I have a mutual acquaintance named Mondello... but now that I think on it I realize he ain't even Larry, and you were referencing the "Beav.")
I apologize, and I welcome you here! And I wasn't being snarky about your prose. If you had me thinking you were Simon, that's high praise.
Sorry, again, if I put you off. I out-think myself sometimes.
Note that if the actual number of reported black rapists of white women is 12%, that's not very different from the fraction of men that are black (it's slightly higher, but race isn't always easy to identify accurately), which would mean that the race of a rapist of a white woman is basically random.
What is so great about your post is that you clearly demonstrate superior understanding of statistics, sociocultural issues, and modern "civilized" life than does that racist guy who thinks blacks just aren't cut out for modern civ.
Thanks for the excellent work!
Wow...I can't help but be shocked, amazed, and saddened every time I follow these threads to the right-wing sites and read the kind of vile, hateful things these people write. I just found a user post connected to Auster's blog on frontpagemag.com.
"Which is that none of these rapes would occur if JEWS hadn't pushed through 'civil rights.' THAT was what gave the nuggers access to human women.
Get angry, if you must, at the jungle animals who have never been able to control their behavior, but get angrier at the jews who sicced them on the White community.
The same jews that ended free association, and replaced it with forced integration, thereby allowing nuggers rape 100 White girls a day, are the ones NOT REPORTING these crimes in their papers - and pretending (Duke rape hoax, Grisham's "A Time to Kill") that White males pose a threat to black females.
Evil, thy name is JEW."
Be afraid, people.
I'm no statistician, but I am a female lawyer who has done some gender studies and crimonology work as an undergrad, thus I wonder can't the difference in the number of women raped by the other race be attributed to the fact that white women are a much larger percentage of the population than black women. Meaning rape is more about gender than race necessarily and if one is going to rape a woman in this country it is much more likely statistically that woman will be white. Similarly, the number of white women raped by white men is probably exponentially higher than the number of white women raped by black men. However, when you think of the number proportionally then isn't the fact that of groups of 100,000 women only 9 more white women are raped by the other race mean than are black women by whites (25-16) really mean that whites are raping more black women considering they are a much smaller portion of the general population. Or is my analysis completely screwed up? Have they controlled for the percentage of the population in their statistics?
Anonymous Female Lawyer: Thanks for visiting and for commenting.
Thinking about these stats for too long gives one glazy eyes... Nobody who's so far written publicly during this donnybrook -- least of all Auster -- can give an authoritative accounting of the federal data vis-a-vis race and rape.
The one thing the propagandists like Auster and Horowitz have right is: the mainstream media is afraid to acknowledge or examine the disproportion of black violent crime.
I think it should be examined frankly... as big of a minefield as it is. And I resist the liberal impulse to do the reverse of the Auster Twist and try to explain away the fact that black males do more raping per capita than white males do... just as black males commit more murders. Way more.
So I'm all for dealing with the elephant in the room.
What I, personally, take away from the statistics, as they've been discussed for the past week -- most fair-mindedly and intriguingly by some of Auster's own readers in this comment thread -- is this:
1.) Black men commit more sexual attacks per capita than white men;
2.) Black women bear the brunt of this; a black woman is three times more likely to be raped than a white woman;
3.) As a ratio, more blacks rape whites than whites rape blacks. The dichotomy is significant, but not enoromous -- 12 percent of the attackers of white women are black; only 6 percent of the attackers of black women are white.
Now, if white guys want to yell from the rooftops about a phenomenon that only accounts for 12 percent of white rape victims... well, I can't tell 'em not to.
But the bullshit that's still being dealt by Auster is a far cry from this kind of reasoned analysis.
Mr. Mills,
The elephant in the room isn't that a small swath of black men rape or sexually assault a inexplicably large amount of white women, but that this phenomenon generates NO attention in the MSM and no deeper analysis by the purveyors of those that see racial animus everywhere they see a white person "victimizing" a minority.
You simply won't even acknowledge that this disproportionate amount of violence against white woman by black men may be evidence for racial hatred of whites.
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.
Looks like you lose in the token negro sweepstakes.
But I'm shocked and saddened that nobody will point out the elephant in the room.
Nearly 100% of all rapists of white women are men. Get that! Men.
White men who think they have something coming (sic). Black men, the same. Asian men, the same. All with, as our british cousins say, dangly bits.
And we waste precious bits in the internet tubes over the colour of the willie!
Damn shame it is.
H.
In response to the comment by the Anonymous female lawyer, there are approximately four times more whites than African Americans in the US population (approximately 60% to 15%).
Thus, the rapists of white women who are African Americans is approximately equivalent to black men's percentage of the white male population. Contrary to the Anonymous elephant, this statistic doesn't evidence any specific "targeting" of white women.
With respect to black women, the race of their attackers is probably more likely a result of de facto segregation in society. The situations when black women are more vulnerable to attacks (alone, and with few bystanders around) are more likely to occur in black neighborhoods.
These statistics do not evidence some black propensity for crime. Since rape especially is intended to assert "power" over the victim, the poor or powerless are limited to violence rather than economics or other means to exhibit their power.
Accuse Larry of racism if you want, but how do you explain that more, MANY more black men rape white women than white men rape black women? Is this not sufficient proof of racial hatred by blacks. Is it not sufficient proof of self-defeating white guilt that relieves blacks from the consequences of their action while preventing whites from acknowledging reality?
Post a Comment