Sunday, August 3, 2008

Muslim, not a Muslim

Lawrence Auster, my favorite fringe-right blogger, has focused the past few days on a grisly murder in Canada. In a nutshell: a sleeping passenger on a Greyhound bus was stabbed, disemboweled and beheaded by another passenger.

The word “beheaded” is what leaped out at Auster. His first post – soon after midnight on Friday morning – was headlined: “A new phase of jihad? Man stabbed to death and decapitated on bus in Canada.”

Auster took a swipe at the “uber PC” Canadian police, who hadn’t released the suspect’s name. Because, you know, there just had to be an “Ahmed” or “Khalid” in it. Or at least we can assume that’s what Auster believed, based on the word “jihad” in his headline.

Later Friday morning, Auster bemoaned the fact that no new information had been released.

“I can think of only one explanation for this news blackout,” he wrote. “It is that the killer is indeed a Muslim, and that the news is so shocking, its implications so frightening--Canadians might be slaughtered and beheaded, anywhere, any time--that the ultra-PC Canadian authorities... can't handle it.

“Because, if the killer is a Muslim, as seems very likely,” Auster continued, “it would mean that Canada (and every Western country with a Musulman population) has now become like Israel, where death-by-Islam can occur to anyone, any time, any place.”

An hour or so later, officials released the suspect’s name: Vince Weiguang Li. “And he’s not a Muslim, at least by his name,” Auster blogged, “he’s Chinese (though of course there are Chinese Muslims).”

Shortly after noon on Friday, Auster felt the need to post again... about whether or not he had embarrassed himself with that “jihad” business:

“[I]f there is anyone thinking, based on the fact that the beheading suspect is apparently not a Muslim, that I was premature in guessing that he is one, think about what that says about your attitudes and assumptions....

“There is one group in the world for whom beheadings are central to their religion and culture. In every country where Islamic law is in effect, Muslims behead criminals.”

Point taken, Mr. Auster.

By Friday evening, he posted yet again... with this headline: “The likelihood of a Muslim inspiration should not be dismissed.” After all, as one of Auster’s readers pointed out, “Tapes of beheadings (yes, done by Muslims) have been available on the Web for years.”

Early Saturday morning, Auster had new information: “Report: beheader is ‘Chinese Muslim motivated by Koran.’ ”

Evidently, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation had put this on its website: “A Chinese Muslim, Li expressed to investigators that his actions were motivated by the Koran.” But that line was soon removed from the CBC report.

Was this a case of politically incorrect information being “sanitized” by the CBC? Or was the information removed because it was wrong in the first place? Lawrence Auster isn’t sure.

“If this is true, then my controversial guess... that the killer was Muslim (followed by my theory that the Canadian authorities were covering up his Muslim status in order to prevent a mass anti-Muslim reaction) was accurate. But we don't know that it's true.”

On Saturday night, Auster shared another right-wing blogger’s notion that Vince Weiguang Li might’ve acted out of “voluntary jihad syndrome” – that is, he was a Muslim who suddenly “went postal” on an infidel.

Then, early Sunday morning, came this from the ever-vigilant Auster: “It’s virtually definite: he’s a Muslim.” This based on information in a Chinese-language newspaper, sent to Auster by one of his readers.

Alas, by Sunday afternoon the mainstream media was reporting that Li and his wife had occasionally attended a Baptist church in Winnipeg, prompting Auster to blog: “If he went to a Baptist church, even just a few times, he could not have been any kind of devout Muslim.”

Later came a report that Li had cannibalized his victim. And if that’s true, Auster wrote, “he couldn’t be a Muslim.”

By now, I picture Larry Auster shaking his fists at the sky, wailing because he is “forced to form an inadequate picture out of bits and pieces.”

I sure hope the truth comes out soon... for Auster’s sake. Sounds like he’s been losing sleep.


Anonymous said...

This loser "Undercover Black Man" is a LIAR who resorts to censorship. He deletes comments that prove that he is wrong, and then closes the comments. I don't care if anyone else sees this comment, YOU will see it, UCB, you lying, censoring LOSER, and you know in your heart that you are WRONG because you resort to dishonest and misleading censorship to prop up your false claims.

What the hell is wrong with you? You delete comments that prove beyond doubt that what you wrote is wrong? That means that you KNOW you are wrong and you have no other recourse except CENSORSHIP. Loser.

You are WRONG that the stats came from some Auster dude. They came DIRECTLY from the USDOJ:

From the US Department of Justice:

Go to the "Victims and Offenders" and download the pdf document for 2005. Then go to table 42. It PLAINLY states:

"Type of crime and race of victim" for "Rape/sexual assault" : White only - Number of single-offender victimizations - 111,490- Percieved Race of Offender - Black - 33.6%."

33.6% of 111,490 is 37,460.

Here are the numbers for black victims of rape and sexual assault:

"Type of crime and race of victim for "Rape/sexual assault" : Black only - Number of single-offender victimizations - 36,620- Percieved Race of Offender - White - 0.0% *."

and if you follow the little asterix to the bottom of the page for the footnote, it says very clearly:

"Estimate is based on about 10 or fewer sample cases."

So there you go, plain as day. According to the US Department of Justice, in the year 2005 alone black men raped at least 37,460 white women, and in the same year white men raped less than ten black women.

Therefore, statistically, over 100 white women are being raped every day by black men.

Undercover Black Man said...

^ Dude, you obviously did not read my link in that comment. You are mistaken. Please follow my link and get your information together.

Anonymous said...

Dude, how plain can it get? Are you stupid or something? The link goes DIRECTLY to the USDOJ, as anyone can see, not to some FrontPage or Auster dude.

Do I have to post the link again???

Go to the "Victims and Offenders" and download the pdf document for 2005. Then go to table 42. Do the math. I am right. You are wrong.

Undercover Black Man said...

Here's that link once more. Please read it.

And stop relying on for your facts.

Anonymous said...

I will keep posting this until you get it through you thick skull that the stats come directly from the US Department of Justice, not Auster or David Duke. You are not making black people look very smart.

Dude, how plain can it get? Are you stupid or something? The link goes DIRECTLY to the USDOJ, as anyone can see, not to some FrontPage or Auster dude.

Do I have to post the link again???

Go to the "Victims and Offenders" and download the pdf document for 2005. Then go to table 42. Do the math. I am right. You are wrong.

Undercover Black Man said...

^ My friend, the fact that there were fewer than 10 cases in a survey sample doesn't mean that there were fewer than 10 cases in the country. Which is why it's useful to look at 10 years' worth of data for a more accurate picture.

Somehow, though, I don't think you're interested in an accurate picture.

bklyn6 said...

What about how Auster was all conflicted over the report that Li had a beard? I mean, he KNOWS Asian men can't grow facial hair. *wink*

Sorry, I couldn't help it.

Seriously though, a-flippin'-mazing. For a minute I thought this was fiction.

"I am right. You are wrong."

And there it is.

C. Collins said...

Troll, if you have something important to say, get your own blog.

Then you won't have to worry about other people deleting your comments.

..Or are you afraid no one is going to pay attention to you?

Anonymous said...

Even if the USDOJ stats implied for white-on-black rape rates are wildly inaccurate by a factor of one thousand, it still means that black men are raping far more white women than white men are raping black women.

10 x 1,000 = 10,000

37,460 - 10,000 = 27,460.

Therefore, even if the USDOJ stats are that wrong, black men still raped over 27,460 more white women than white men raped black women.

Check it, black folk. There is this crazy new thing on the internet called a "link". When you follow a "link" it goes to a specific "website". This link, for example:

it takes you DIRECTLY to the "website" of this thing run by the "Federal Government of the United States of America", to a division of said government called the "US Department of Justice".

When you follow this "link", and go to the "Victims and Offenders" document for the year 2005, and go to Table 42, actually read it (I know, that's hard for some of you), you will find the following information:

"Type of crime and race of victim" for "Rape/sexual assault" : White only - Number of single-offender victimizations - 111,490- Perceived Race of Offender - Black - 33.6%."

Now, I realize some of yall are terrible at math, but 33.6% of 111,490 is 37,460.

Therefore, according to the US Department of Justice, in the year 2005 alone black men raped at least 37,460 white women.

Now here comes some of that white-devil math again: When you divide 37,460 by 365 (that's the number of days in the year, I know it is such an obscure fact) it means that statistically, over 100 white women are being raped every day in the USA by black men.

Undercover Black Man said...

^ What about the data for 2004? How do you explain that?

Anonymous said...

It looks like the black men were busy raping black women in 2004.

Undercover Black Man said...

There's 10 years worth of data at the link you provided, which is important to look at to smoothe out any year-to-year anomalies.

Crunch those numbers and you'll discover the disproportion in interracial rapes depicted thusly:

36 white women per day sexually attacked by blacks; 8 black women per day sexually attacked by whites.

Anonymous said...

Whatever. Those numbers are still reflect horribly on black men.

Trying to make out like those numbers are "better" is like saying a milkshake with a few drops of diarrhea in it is somehow better than a milkshake with a whole turd in it.

Anonymous said...

"There's 10 years worth of data at the link you provided"

Ah, finally, at least you are not obviously lying and claiming the stats came from David Duke anymore.

It made you look extra-stupid when you did that.

Undercover Black Man said...

^ The link, precisely as you presented it -- as well as the analysis, precisely as you presented it -- came from Auster's piece, reprinted in full at

I track these memes full-time, my friend.

Anonymous said...

OK, maybe Duke cited it. I've never been to his site, I don't care if you believe me or not.

Just because Duke cited it does not make it false.

In fact, I would bet that Duke tries to be pretty accurate with his stats (you and I may disagree with his interpretation of them, but that's a whole different matter) because he knows people will be gunning to punch holes in his data.

Try to use a little logic. Anyone can quote the crime data provided by the US Government - Obama, McCain, Hillary, David Duke, Charles Manson, whoever - ANYONE.

If they present the facts from the USDOJ verbatim, then the only thing to disagree about is the particular INTERPRETATION of the facts presented.

Maybe Duke cited these facts... SO WHAT. It doesn't change the facts into lies just because some asshole pointed them out.

Undercover Black Man said...

I'm just explaining to you how this meme took hold. You might've gotten it a few steps removed from Duke... but that's the viral nature of Internet memes.

I'm telling you that the flawed interpretation began with Lawrence Auster, he acknowledged his flawed interpretation on his blog, acknowledged Auster's flawed interpretation and banned Auster from contributing any more articles.

Yet the flawed interpretation now has a life of its own... thanks to the likes of you.

Do yerself a favor. Read that link I posted upthread.

Anonymous said...

Look, I threw you a bone and acknowledged that the white-on-black rape rate meme of less than 10 per year may be inaccurate.

It still doesn't change the fact that according to the USDOJ, in 2005, black men raped at least 37,000 white women, which does mathematically mean that over 100 white women a day were raped by black men in the USA that year. There is nothing flawed about that interpretation, it is pure mathematics. There is no way to "misinterpret" that.

The only way you can challenge it is to say that the USDOJ is just plain wrong when they state that 33.6% of the 111,490 white women raped in 2005 were raped by black men.

Undercover Black Man said...

^ I challenge it only be saying that there are year-by-year anomalies in victim surveys, which are drawn, after all, from a sample pool... not the total of actual crimes.

Thus a more accurate interpretation comes from looking at a 10-year span.

Of course, if your goal is to overstate the problem for political purposes, keep hyping the number you want to hype.

Just don't pretend that it's about "the truth."

Anonymous said...

Ok, for the sake of the discussion I accept the numbers you provided:

"36 white women per day sexually attacked by blacks; 8 black women per day sexually attacked by whites."

and I stand by what I wrote about them:

"Those numbers are still reflect horribly on black men.

Trying to make out like those numbers are "better" is like saying a milkshake with a few drops of diarrhea in it is somehow better than a milkshake with a whole turd in it."

Christina said...

Anon, you keep talking about how we're not reading, but you're continuing not to read the correct interpretation of those stats, which has been linked to already. Or you're reading them but not understanding them. So the cracks about "white-devil math" and all could go both ways. And its low. No one has made a racial attack on you here.

I'm contributing to the derailing of this thread, but I've got to ask: wouldn't it be more useful, if "rape" is truly the problem, to break out some stats like:

Percentage of rapes committed by black men against ALL women and

Percentage of rapes committed by white men against ALL women?

(all women = women of all ethnic groups.)

Or maybe even just...percentage of women who are raped?

It's not like it's less of crime somehow if a black man rapes a black woman, or if a white guy rapes a white woman. Of course, that's the kind of distinction you wouldn't pay attention too if your main point is just that black men are all animals.

But as a woman, I'm kinda more interested in rape in general and not this race breakout nonsense -- as I said earlier, it's not going to make me feel better about being raped if the attacker is black like me.

I'm not suggesting there are no disparities; I really have no idea. But I don't care how many black men are raping white women, or how many white men rape black women. They're rapists. They're scary.

(Also, since you keep calling back to those stats, you should also note that rapes are including sexual assaults, which includes some activity which, while criminal, may be less heinous than rape.)

Okay, my contribution to the derailing is over! said...

Hey UBM,

You are correct that David did cite those statistics and they have been repeated in numerous places.

The statistics about the number of black women raped by white men are BOGUS!! Why? Because it is documented that 99% of black women do not report that they have been raped.

Therefore, counting the number of black women who REPORTED being raped by white men does not mean that THIS statistic reflects the number of actual rapes occurred.

Ummmm...the fact that no one ever takes note of that is a bit...

{shaking my head}
Lisa said...

Hey there UBM!

Why don't you have the link to the Black Web Log Awards put up on your blog? Aren't you going to participate in the contest?? Come's all in fun!!


Peace, blessings and DUNAMIS!

Undercover Black Man said...

^ I'm not quite up on that award, Lisa. Thanks for bringing it up.

Actually, though, I'm not really into competing with other bloggers.

c23 said...

He's just playing your game:

JD Rhoades said...


Frankly, coming onto someone else's blog and ranting that the blogger is a "loser" is not a way to get your point across. I quit reading after that, because that kind of language just screams "troll." And I don't think I'm alone in this.

Under any interpretation of blog etiquette, UBM would be justified in deleting your abusive posts and banning your ass, especially since you don't have the balls to post under a real name.

cuz said...

I lost interest in the thread from the top. But you hit it Christina. thx for posting that. But back on topic of "Muslim, not Muslim." Great story UBM. I heard or read a quick blurb about this homocide. Thought it was outrageous but didn't know the details. I guess when so-called "Christians" bomb and shoot progressive religious folk, it's a random act of crazy. Not so with Muslims - no hall pass. Who says investigative journalism is dead. Keep us posted.

Nick Kasoff said...

UCBM, I'm amazed that you failed to note that a commenter in one of the posts on VFTR ( links to The Thug Report. Perhaps the conspiracy is even broader than you thought.

Christina said...

I know this conversation is over, dead, buried. I guess I've still been thinking about it, though, and I wanted to throw something out there...could it be that white women are sexually attacked more frequently by black men because there are just more white women in the country overall? It just seems like the pool of potential rape victims would be primarily white women.

I don't know if that accounts for the entire disparity, but couldn't that be part of it?

To make a stronger argument one way or another, I'd still like to know what percentage of black men are in jail for rape, vs. what percentage of white men are in jail for rape.

Anyway, I guess I just wanted to type this for posterity's sake because I know the conversation is over.

Minister Faust said...

Hey, UBM. Being a loyal Canadian, I was listening to CBC radio when the first news report came out about the decapitation. I don't recall if it was the first report, or perhaps the second day, but my recollection was that the killer was identified as "Li" or "Lee" very early on, with no reference to race or religion, although perhaps when the name "Vincent" was thrown in, I assumed "Li," since many folks from East Asia have "time warp" European names far less common in the Anglo world today.

To the limited extent the coverage pointed to motive or cause, mental illness seemed to be the predominant guess. So I don't buy this right winger's claim that "PC police" in media stopped the public from making a link to Islam, since there was apparently not much of a link to be made, and cannibalism is, to my knowledge, frowned upon in the Abrahamic faiths (despite the taking of the Eucharist). Even if this individual had been motivated by some bizarre perversion of Islam (and again, since he attended a Baptist church, that seems highly unlikely, to say the least), let's look at the case of Timothy McVeigh. His crimes have never been employed by corporate media to make a case against:

a) men
b) White folks
c) military culture
d) veterans
e) working class people
f) Christians
g) people named Tim
h) right wing conservatives
i) FOX viewers
j) White separatists (in this case, at least, not a sustained case).

The larger question raised by your inquiry might be, "How fairly does corporate North American media treat Muslims, Arabs and Islam?" Jack Shaheen's work, linked on my blog ( makes a damning case against Hollywood on this topic. Other illuminating examples would include corporate media's silence on C. Rice's claim that the Israel-Lebanon war of 2006 was the "birth pangs of a new Middle East," while she was buying shoes and attending *Spam-alot* (unless those are urban myths), and 1000 Lebanese were being killed (and a Canadian peace keeper at a UN post, if any cares (not even our own Prime Minister did, by the way)) by the vastly more powerful Israeli military (paid for by American citizens).

Had anyone made such comments about the September 11 attacks ("birth pangs of a new America"), he would have been condemned, and rightly so. Had 1,000 Israelis been killed in an asymmetric battle against them, and someone made such comments, he would have been condemned, and rightly so. But when Arabs die (whether they're Muslims or not), western media purveyors shed no tears (unless they're for fictional babies ripped from Kuwaiti incubators). Certainly there were no tears for the 1.5 million Iraqis dead from the results of U.S.-led sanctions for 11 years (eight under Clinton), which included around 640,000 children under 5. No tears for the untold thousands who will die of cancers and birth defects from US use of depleted uranium weapons (, and for supremely disturbing images, see, a subject which has vanished even from left critiques, astonishingly.

There are double-standards in reporting, yes, and under certain circumstances, Arab and Muslims *regimes* (not the people) are the beneficiaries. An honest corporate press should investigate and expose the horrible repression of Arabs and Muslims by Arab and Muslim governments, and should start with one of the US's most important allies: Saudi Arabia. Such investigation should follow the ethic, "afflict the comfortable, and comfort the afflicted." I raise that because the slew of right wing books on the House of Saud are not, from what I can tell, intended to bring comfort and relief to the suffering population of (i.e., 95% of women and 90% of men) and foreign workers (from poor countries) in Saudi Arabia. Such inquiries are generally part of a larger attack on Arabs and Muslims, intended to say, "See what barbarians these people are!"

Okay, that's about all for now.

Undercover Black Man said...

^ Great to hear from you, Minister Faust!

MrDebate_The_ haters said...

To anonymous,

Here we are in the year 2008 and your beating some dead horse stats from 2005 only because it supports your racist idea about black men. On top of thats these rape stats are bogus even if its from the DOJ. Why do I say this, well therean organization known as Innocence Project -

They have helped free a couple hundred men MOSTLY African American men wrongly accused of rape. Due to advances in DNA they have proved these men were fasly accused. They state that since 1989 tens of thousands have been wrongly accused until recent DNA testing . Their site further states that while 29% of the people in prison for rape are black, 64% of the people wrongly convicted of rape ( then exonerated through DNA) are Black. This proves your white racist BS about black men raping white women in 2005 or any other year cant be trusted. Whats also amazing is that 63% of the 1st 86 wrongful convictions overturned by DNA were due to Forensic errors to outright exaggerations and fraud.

You may have heard these stories from time to time about a man recently released from prison after 25 years in jail accused of rape. So again your white racist claims about rape of the white women are bogus based on the facts from the innocence project.

Undercover Black Man said...

^ I appreciate your comment. But, ummm... there's a logical problem with it.

The fact that the wrong black man is convicted of a crime doesn't mean that a black man didn't commit the crime.

Time to confront the reality that black men do commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime.